# Hacked email accounts reveal scientists were lying about global warming



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2009)

Interesting...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



> Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
> ...
> The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.
> ...
> ...



When it is finally revealed that this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming is one big canard, a fake, a fraud, and utterly without merit...I am going to have myself a good long laugh at the expense of the bleeding hearts.  I'll buy two SUV's and strap one to each foot.  I'll spray cans of aerosols into the air just because.  Hahahahaha.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2009)

A little over the top there Bill :lol:.

Climate change is happening and it is not a surprise to hear that there has been dissent in the ranks - you should hear the rows that Newton got into, let alone Einstein.

Personally, I have held steady to the idea that the changes required by the 'anthorpogenic' camp to just be sensible anyway, given the scarcity of the resources involved. Some elements have pushed for ridiculous things that harm more than they help e.g. CAT's on every car exhaust, no lead in the fuel, no coal fired power stations et al.  Those are the problems.  Greater efficiency, less resource use and less environmental damage are only common sense at the end of the day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> A little over the top there Bill :lol:.
> 
> Climate change is happening and it is not a surprise to hear that there has been dissent in the ranks - you should hear the rows that Newton got into, let alone Einstein.
> 
> Personally, I have held steady to the idea that the changes required by the 'anthorpogenic' camp to just be sensible anyway, given the scarcity of the resources involved. Some elements have pushed for ridiculous things that harm more than they help e.g. CAT's on every car exhaust, no lead in the fuel, no coal fired power stations et al.  Those are the problems.  Greater efficiency, less resource use and less environmental damage are only common sense at the end of the day.



Climate change *is *happening.  I'm still a little unclear how it came to be something we caused, or alternatively, something we can correct.

And disputes between scientists?  No problem.  Aggressive attempts to stifle opposition?  Also normal.  However, when the leaders of the world pronounce with straight faces that this is 'settled science' and that virtually every climate scientist agrees that global climate warming is real and we caused it - oops.  That would be a lie.

Not over the top.  They got caught with their hands up the puppet's backside, is all.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2009)

Ah I get you.  Well that would be the politicians that lied then surely?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Ah I get you.  Well that would be the politicians that lied then surely?



Absolutely, but remember that they were lied to first.  Once it became a political issue, it took on a life of its own.  So at first, it was scientists raising the alarm to politicians and world leaders.  Then it was impossible to climb down, once the politicos got their teeth into it.

This is an ugly thing.  We're going to end up spending trillions of dollars to 'fix' a problem that we didn't create, and that (IMHO) stands precious little chance of being 'fixed' by us anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2009)

Ban Ki-Moon admitted that the Copenhagen summit would be used to turn the UN into a "Green" global government.  The allocation of resources and the industry of various areas would be controlled by the UN-IMF-World Bank.  That's the political agenda behind the global warming debate.  It's not a scientific issue anymore.  Now it serves a purpose.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2009)

After all of the flame wars, after all of the money spent by these huge foundations, after all of the time I wasted trying to argue for this...it turns out that the scientists were lying the entire time.  I jumped on the skeptic band wagon a few years ago when the UN started to push for a complete de-industrialization of the first world complete with "re-wilding" and all of this apocalyptic Green stuff started coming out.  This is the nail in the coffin.  As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over.  Global warming is dead and people need to wake up and realize this.  

These e-mails PROVE they have been lying the entire time.  They have been targeting critics for persecution.  They've attempted to link climate change skeptics with holocaust deniers.  Enough is enough.  It's over.  

WAKE UP!!!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 23, 2009)

Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 23, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
> Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.



I'd like to see a link to anything you have showing the emails were modified rather than posted verbatim.  So far, all I've seen (on both left and right-wing oriented websites and so on) have been attempts by the people affected to explain why their statements are being taken out of context (your second point) and not that they were untrue or that they never said that.

I agree with _'taken out of context'_ being a concern.  And if they've been modified before being posted, then of course they prove nothing at all.  So I'd be glad to see your link to where they were "found to be doctored" if you don't mind.

Thanks!


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2009)

But, it has to be caused by man. If it is natural and cyclical there isn't a way to make money and take power from it, without looking like, well, an ***.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'd like to see a link to anything you have showing the emails were modified rather than posted verbatim.  So far, all I've seen (on both left and right-wing oriented websites and so on) have been attempts by the people affected to explain why their statements are being taken out of context (your second point) and not that they were untrue or that they never said that.
> 
> I agree with _'taken out of context'_ being a concern.  And if they've been modified before being posted, then of course they prove nothing at all.  So I'd be glad to see your link to where they were "found to be doctored" if you don't mind.
> 
> Thanks!



Have you ever posted something which you KNEW you had read, and then later you can't find it anymore?
It just happened to me. GAAAAH.
I know for sure that I read it on my regular (flemmish) news site, yet the article is not there anymore. They regularly remove stuff that is older than a day, probably to get people to actually buy the newspaper.

Short of it: I can't find it anymore. I found lots of -speculation- that they could have been doctored, I found statements that they were spin-doctored, but nothing indicating that they actually were doctored.

What I did find was that the mailed themselves were taken out of context, written by people assuming privacy, and quoted only partially in some cases.
I am pretty sure I've written stuff that can be taken out of context.

In any case, I apologise for not having included he link immediately. I should have done so because now I can't bloody find it anymore.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 23, 2009)

You guys here the New York Times (NYT), the pargon of virtue, said today they would not publish the hacked emails cause, "We Won't Publish Statements That Were Never Intended for the Public Eye".

Yea, they are ones that leaked the "Pentagon Papers"and over the years all kinds of Anti-Bush information, why they all the sudden have this fit of virtue!

It simply means all the liberals know the game is up. Global Warming is a hucksters dream. It made Al Gore $300 million. It made GE Billions. It made, well fools out of alot of people.

Oh, and two nights ago I let the dogs out to wee at about 1 AM. IT WAS SNOWING. Yes here in Texas. Pretty much East Texas. Not big snow but little stuff. I wondered if Al Gore had came to town!

Deaf


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Except these mails were found to be doctored and taken out of context. If the latter is debatable, the former is not.
> Good thing you didn't jump to conclusions yet.



The closest thing that I could find of that was that The Guardian insinuated that the e-mails might have been tampered with.  The University is saying that they are being taken out of context.  

At any rate, here's some quotes from the "e-mails" they are easy to find.  It's a 60 MB zip file.



> "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) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline."
> 
> "It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?"
> 
> ...



I seriously don't feel like I'm jumping to conclusions.  I started having some major doubts in 2004.  Before then, I was a true believer.  I've got articles that I wrote from back then that I can only shake my head at now.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 23, 2009)

To some people questioning "global warming" is akin to questioning the religion of a true believer.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> To some people questioning "global warming" is akin to questioning the religion of a true believer.


 
And questioning Obama's ability is like questioning Jesus. After all, Obama does feel he's been sent by God.

I feel Obama and Gore are in for a rough night in Jericho. And about time.

Deaf


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2009)

Here's another thing.  As soon as I found out about this, I downloaded the original zipfile.  I suspect that in a few days, we'll be seeing "new material" inserted into these files and attempts to discredit the whole bunch will be attempted.  

The other thing is that individuals involved admit that these are their e-mails.  They claim they are being taken out of context, but they also say that yes, they said all of this.  It's like any criminal spouting off before they get their story straight.  

The gig is up and these guys have been caught red handed.  These emails show that their was a conspiracy to demonize rivals, have scientists programs defunded, manipulate and control scientific journals, use statistics to hide negative data, completely fabricate data, and hide pertinent data.  I'm going through these things and my head is spinning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 23, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Have you ever posted something which you KNEW you had read, and then later you can't find it anymore?
> It just happened to me. GAAAAH.



Not a problem, I'm hip.  And for the record, if it turns out that the emails are doctored and not truthful, I'll be the first to eat crow.  I agree with you that you can easily take certain things out of context, and that's bad.  But what I've read so far seems to indicate a pattern of deception and really, it does not look good.

I have always been willing to believe in climate change.  Hey, it happens.  As a child, we talked about the coming ice age, and they still talk about in terms of a bigger picture - we are living in a 'bubble' that has extended much longer than last generation's climatologists thought would last.  Some have even dared to whisper that this current global warming, if caused by humans might (dare I say it) be pushing back the onset of the next ice age.

I don't know, and I don't pretend to know.  I have no confidence that man caused global warming and no confidence that man didn't.  And that's the point for me, I guess.  If we don't know, and there really isn't consensus here, then is it really a good idea to be spending these trillions of dollars on something that might not even be real?

The only argument I've gotten out of proponents of anthropogenic global warming is that _'there is consensus amongst scientists, so we should trust them'_.   And if that's not really true...


----------



## Xinglu (Nov 23, 2009)

Even if it is all a sham, it won't stop me from making eco friendly choices.  Just because we can **** where we sleep doesn't mean we should. :wink2:

I have always viewed the whole thing as a personal choice.  You won't see me yelling at they guy driving a hummer.  That's his choice.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 24, 2009)

Like Bill, when I grew up the consensus was that there was going to be a new Ice Age in the not too distant future.  I still hold that to be probably given that glaciation is generally presaged by warming leading to a tipping-point and inversion.

A colleague at work and I have argued this through so often that we have now reduced the debate to two phrases - I'll walk past his desk and simply say "Ice age!" to which he will reposte "Global Warming!" :lol:.


----------



## crushing (Nov 24, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> A colleague at work and I have argued this through so often that we have now reduced the debate to two phrases - I'll walk past his desk and simply say "Ice age!" to which he will reposte "Global Warming!" :lol:.


 
Fire and Ice
by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire; 
Some say in ice. 
From what I've tasted of desire 
I hold with those who favor fire. 
But if it had to perish twice, 
I think I know enough of hate 
To say that for destruction ice 
Is also great 
And would suffice.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 24, 2009)

Global warming may or may be happening. We don't know either way.
Noone knows for sure.

No matter what side you believe, you should be open minded enough to admit that the other side -could- be right. We don't know.

The additional problem is that we have only limited data of questionable quality. I have read the account of how they measured the background radiation of the universe. Basically, they measure an insane amount of data, which looks like random noise, which then has to be massaged.

This massaging is normal. You have to compensate for the rotation of the earth, so you do this. The antenna has these geometric properties so the data has to be corrected with X. Then the frequency responsivity is not linear so there are some mroe transformations, etc at nauseam.
and after all that, they finally had a result. Dozens and dozens of corrections had to be done. And of course, if you get it wrong, you introduce bias instead of removing it.

Similar things have to be done with what temperature data we have. Please accept that the bare fact that scientists are doing things to the data is normal. That is what you have to do when working with such data. this is NOT a conspiracy, this is normal. A friend of mine is a statistician, and his problem with global warming is that climatologists are generally not qualified statisticians.

As they say: don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to stupidity. 

The only conclusion we can make is that we don't know. You can't prove GW is false any more than anyone else can prove it is true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2009)

If all of this ends up being a hoax, or if it's legitimately discredited in the future, I'll still be against the people who are pushing the "fixes" for global warming, because they are so terrible and Malthusian one has to wonder where people's humanity has gone.

The carbon tax on all sources of emission, cap and trade, the removal of industry to the 169 countries exempt from the global agreements, and the strengthened overseer status of the BIS through it's twin arms the IMF and the WB is a road straight to tyranny.  

It addresses none of the real environmental problems we face and ultimately won't reduce any emissions because they just shift them to other places on the planet.  I am a liberal when it comes to conservation, cleaning up pollution, and holding corporations accountable for the messes they make world wide.  This legislation is a sham and probably has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the installation of a world government run by the same central banks of the world that already manipulate the economies of each individual countries.

At any rate, according the articles published so far, the people who wrote the emails admitted they wrote them.  The university admitted that they were stolen.  The context issue is the major point of contention in regard to these missives.  A full investigation of the matter by the proper authorities should be required in order to get to the bottom of the matter.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 24, 2009)

I haven't looked through the emails, and for the purposes of my post, really don't need to.  Perhaps they're condemning of their authors, or the organizations they're attributed to, perhaps not.  On that matter, let me just say that the underhanded, even criminal, actions of parties in support of a cause do not necessarily debunk the cause itself.

What I find most disheartening about the global warming debate is that it's become so politicized that the actual science...the real questions that those of us with open minds are wanting to ask...are being drowned in the sea of finger-pointing and ideology.  

Who cares what Al Gore's carbon signature is?  What does it matter how much of it is or is not "our fault"?  Why must people choose a side of the line in the political sand on what is, and should be, a scientific issue? 

There are three central questions that should be asked, and which are largely ignored in favor of polarizing argument.  They are 1) Is it happening?  2) Is it harmful to us as humans and the planet, as we know it, in general? and most important 3) Is there truly anything practical we, as humans, can do to influence the process in our favor?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 24, 2009)

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17...homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming/

100 things blamed on global warming: Here&#8217;s a list of 100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem.

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey&#8217;s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California&#8217;s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

And the list goes on...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2009)

As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on.  What one side is caught manipulating the debate and the data, it's  difficult to discern who one can trust.  I hope all of this kicks global warming out of the political arena for good.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 24, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on. What one side is caught manipulating the debate and the data, it's difficult to discern who one can trust. I hope all of this kicks global warming out of the political arena for good.


 Since when has scientific fact (or unfact depending) ever swayed politicians when they smell money and power?  I have to agree with several other posters so far in that it shouldn't take "the end of the world" to get folks to conserve resources.  I'm an avid hunter and fisherman, camper and kayaker and would like to be able to continue to do those things in the future.  I conserve out of selfishness, I suppose... I also truly believe that we humans are so insignificant that we'll have little effect either way on the planet.  George Carlin said it best: "The planet is fine.  We're ****ed!"


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between global warming and anthropogenic (human-caused or influenced) global warming.

There really isn't much argument over whether or not the planet is warming. I believe that there is a consensus view that it is, when compared to the period of time roughly before the Industrial Age until now.  The earth is warming.

However, even within the general global warming discussion, there is argument over whether or not the period of time being viewed is large enough to establish a long-range trend.  In other words, is the globe warming over 1,000 years trend; over 10,000 years; or over 100,000 years?  When compared to the entire expanse of human history, we've been cooler and we've been warmer.  Compared to a relatively short expanse of time, say the last 400 years, we're definitely warmer.  But we've been emerging from the last ice age for the last 10,000 years.

Then, once we get past those arguments, there is the argument over whether or not man caused the current warming trend or influenced it significantly.  This is the part with which I disagree.  Not because I do not believe man could have caused it,  but because I *doubt* it.  I do not believe the evidence is anything like conclusive.  

The recent emails appear to support my view - that not only was there not consensus, but that many scientists took steps to stifle and suppress conflicting viewpoints as well as hiding information of their own that tended to disprove their conclusions.  THIS IS THE BAD PART in the recent revelations.

The emails do not mean that global warming isn't happening.  They don't mean that global warming is not anthropogenic.  They mean that scientists with a vested interest in making it appear as if it were anthropogenic took steps to skew the results to support their goals.  That's bad.

I was doubly angry with the pro-anthropogenic side because, as has been pointed out in this thread, there was a concerted effort by 'believers' to paint 'deniers' as being as loony and unbalanced as those who deny the holocaust.  In other words, if you didn't agree that global warming was anthropogenic, you were an unbalanced, possibly insane, person.  Not just wrong, not just the loyal opposition, but a sick, sick, person.

The pro-anthropogenic global warming side has also often conflated the two (global warming and anthropogenic global warming) when challenged.  If a person says they are not sure there is strong evidence for human-caused global warming, the reply is _"you refuse to believe global warming is real?  You idiot!"_  When the person never denied global warming, they just expressed doubt that we caused it (or that we can fix it).

The entire argument has moved from scientific inquiry to political and even religious.  It makes me angry with the pro-anthropogenic side because they've consistently engaged in what I consider dirty tricks to demonize those who disagree with them.  Now that is being exposed - I rejoice in it.

Global warming is real and continues.  That was never in debate here, as far as I know.  Just what caused it and what we humans can do about it.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 24, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Like Bill, when I grew up the consensus was that there was going to be a new Ice Age in the not too distant future.  I still hold that to be probably given that glaciation is generally presaged by warming leading to a tipping-point and inversion.



I don't believe that ever had scientific support, it was mostly media sensationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 24, 2009)

Global Warming a "Religion"?

Remember THIS?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> I don't believe that ever had scientific support, it was mostly media sensationalism.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling



Not true.  It was taught as science from the early 1900's to the late 1980's.  If that science is discredited now, that's one thing.  Claiming that it never existed at all as a scientific theory is revisionist fakery created by the anthropogenic global warming proponents to try to make 'deniers' look like lunatics.

A simple search of Google Books for 'between ice ages' reveals hundreds, nay, thousands of scientific text books and articles in magazines about that very common scientific theory.

Was it wrong?  Maybe.  But it wasn't a myth, and it wasn't a 'late '70's delusion'.

I get so tired of these kinds of lies.  I'm not accusing you of lying, but I'm point out that this is disinformation and revisionist history and it's common by the thug-like scientists who tried to sell us on this man-caused global warming ********.


----------



## JDenver (Nov 24, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on.



In related news, we have no idea how gravity works.  It could be false.

Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science.  Maybe it isn't there.

And finally, since it's the anniversary, Darwin's musings on natural selection and evolution are based solely on hypothesis founded on observation and a fossil record.

I don't say any of this to be shmuckish.  I'm quite serious.  Science cannot  completely prove anything.  You will never have complete and utter scientific agreement on anything - even evolution.  I'm not sure what sort of evidence folks seem to be waiting for.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 24, 2009)

JDenver said:


> In related news, we have no idea how gravity works.  It could be false.
> 
> Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science.  Maybe it isn't there.
> 
> ...



Me? Im waiting for evidence that enormous taxation, expense, lifestye changes, "cap and trade", carbon tax, giving up national sovereignty in UN Eco-Treaties, etc.  is  right, necessary or even simply "effective".


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 24, 2009)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025011.php

*More From The East Anglia Archives*

"In January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming *may not occur*:"

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting...and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, *and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India....* While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

*That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution*--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading.... Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean.... Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.

*In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong.* I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

*Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.*
​So there you have it. SO2/sulfate offsetting CO2 and actually we are having a bit of GLOBAL COOLING (and remember the sun's output has been on the decline for years as part of the cycle it has.)

And these 'scientist' are not worried about facts, they are worried that the 'Skeptics' will be proven right (can't have that now, can we????)

Deaf


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not true.  It was taught as science from the early 1900's to the late 1980's.



Any sources? 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 24, 2009)

You're connected to the Net, *Ramirez* .

When I grew up, the sources were in the school library (or on the Open University if you were up early or late enough) - it's much easier these days to do a quick Google to start an investigation.

Climatology is a very complex subject that it is not that easy to make definitive statements about. For example, we have been in a period of declining solar input since the 50's and yet temperatures have been rising. The sun is at a low presently it is observably true but the energy reaching the ground is even less than the low would suggest. Why? Particulate atmospheric pollution. So one pollutant is off-setting the impact of another. Plus, it is currently being modelled that CO2 is not the planet-killer it was once thought to be {which puts a big crimp on the plans to terraform Mars :lol:}. 

So where has the rise come from? And does it presage a temperature inversion such as precipitated previous Ice Ages?

P.S.  The present CO2 concentrations are similar to those recorded in Ice Core records and in that period there was a 6 degree centigrade rise - so what has changed that means a 2 degree rise is so catastrophic (or so it is claimed).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> Any sources?
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html



Yeah, like I said.  Go to google books and there are thousands.

http://tinyurl.com/yc82xbq

Also, if you likewise use google books to search for 'global cooling' and limit the output for years 1900 to 1970, free full content only, you find that:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 50
 By American Meteorological Society, 1969

Talks about what?  Global cooling and how it is increasing faster than global warming.

Gee, that's funny, I thought it was NEVER A REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

That's why I get sick of this crap.  Those who shove human-caused global warming down our throats have an agenda, and they'll do anything to realize their goals - even engage in revisionist history.  Well, they can change Wikipedia entries, but can they change the books that were published by the American Meteorological Society back then?  Nope.  They just rely on the fact that most Americans are too brain-dead and uninterested to go and do the frickin' research themselves.

There were also lots of magazine articles from long ago, not just apocryphal tales:

http://tinyurl.com/y942lvo

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?

http://tinyurl.com/yjf3ako
http://tinyurl.com/yhx7t8u

I could go on for some time.  The fact is, these theories existed, and they were 'real' and they were 'scientific'.  Any attempt to pretend they did not exist is revisionist history, and it really makes me mad.

Argue global warming up or down.  Argue man-caused global warming up or down.  Fine with me.  But pretend that history is not really history in order to ignore an inconvenient fact (that we once thought a new ice age was coming) and I get really really angry.  I hate lies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

JDenver said:


> In related news, we have no idea how gravity works.  It could be false.
> 
> Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science.  Maybe it isn't there.
> 
> ...



You're arguing that global warming exists.  I agree, it does.

If you're arguing that global warming was caused by humans, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear-cut.

And I really mind arguments that do not just try to argue facts, but attempt to belittle - ie, if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid, really stupid.  Like the people who believe that up is down, Santa Claus exists, and so on.  I know that science cannot prove or disprove global warming was caused by humans.  I agree.  So I say we don't know what we don't know.  Let's stop pretending that we do.  Let's not blindly spend trillions of US dollars (and no, other countries won't be asked to pony up on the order that we are) to pay for things that don't fix anything - even assuming that they could.  Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for things that no one knows address a problem that even exists, or that will fix it if it does.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

*http://tinyurl.com/yeqm7e8

**http://tinyurl.com/y8dtswd

**http://tinyurl.com/ye3sw68

*Not a scientific theory, eh?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/170/3958/630



> *Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age *
> 
> *   T. Hughes 1  *   [SIZE=-1]  1 _Institute of Polar Studies_ and _Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210_
> [/SIZE]
> ...



What?  How could it be?  Wikipedia and the smart global warming buttheads say that the notion of a coming ice age was NEVER A REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

*http://tinyurl.com/yzwtjk5

*


> *A scenario of possible future climates: Natural and man-made *
> FLOHN, H
> *    WMO On Climate and Mankind p 243-266 (SEE N80-12665 03-47);     International Organization; 1979 *
> 
> Warm and cold episodes of earth climate are analyzed, including     the medieval warming, the Holocene warm episode, the last     interglacial epoch, the glaciated Antartic versus ice-free Arctic     scenario, the volcanic events and the Little Ice Age (1550-1850),     *and the possible initiation of a new ice age*. It is concluded that     a normal climate only exists in a very broad sense, and that many     previous climate periods differed considerably from the present     situation. However, the risks associated with a CO2 content that     may reach 750-900 ppm should be seriously considered.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2009)

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D11FB3B5516738DDDA90994DE405B838EF1D3



> MENACE OF A NEW ICE AGE TO BE TESTED BY SCIENTISTS; Indications in Arctic That Have Caused Some Apprehension -- MacMillan Expedition Will Leave for Greenland Next Month to Study Recent Movements of Glaciers.
> 
> *June 10, 1923, Sunday*
> 
> IS another Ice Age coming? Are the scenes of the latter Pleistocene Age -- the geologic period -which immediately preceded our own -- to be repeated? And, if so, what will it mean to the inhabitants of the earth? In an effort to determine whether there is any likelihood of such a cataclysmic occurrence the MacMillan expedition will leave this month for Greenland to study the recent movements of glaciers on that island continent.



http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3



> MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...Ice+Age+Foreseen+In+10,000+Years&pqatl=google



> New Ice Age Foreseen In 10,000 Years
> Experts Find We Are On Cold Side of Inter-Glacial Temperature Curve
> The Hartford Courant (1923-present) - Hartford, Conn.
> Date: 	*Sep 18, 1932*



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...o's+Glaciers+Start+Growing+Spurt&pqatl=google



> Two Colorado's Glaciers Start Growing Spurt
> The Hartford Courant (1923-present) - Hartford, Conn.
> Date: 	*Oct 23, 1938*
> Estes Park, Colo.--After shrinking steadily for five years, two Colorado glaciers made a comeback this year that one official calls little short of phenomenal.



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...e+Age+Prospect+Told+by+Scientist&pqatl=google
New Ice Age Prospect Told by Scientist



> Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
> Author: 	A Times Correspondent
> Date: 	Dec 28, 1954
> A new Ice Age may be starting in the Western United States, according to Dr. A. E. Harrison of the University of Washington. He spoke here today at a session of the American Association for the Advance-...



http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D10FB3C5B157B93C4A8178DD85F428585F9



> ICE AGE PREDICTED IN GLACIER STUDY; New Theory Says Warming of Arctio May Set Stage for Freezing to South Sequence Is Explained
> *June 16, 1956,* Saturday
> 
> Page 21, 580 words
> ...



http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...s+Times&desc=SCIENTISTS+PREDICT:&pqatl=google



> SCIENTISTS PREDICT:
> Another Ice Age Is On The Way
> 
> Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
> ...



http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C11FD3A5B137A93C1AB1789D85F4D8685F9



> Science; Worrying About a New Ice Age
> -- WALTER SULLIVAN
> 
> *February 23, 1969*, Sunday
> ...



Can we now put to rest the lie that a 'new ice age' was never really a scientific theory? Can we now stop mindlessly repeating the mantra that it was just a popular myth, that it was never really taught in schools, that it never really received any scientific support?  Can we stop pretending that it was not considered a valid theory?

Right or wrong, the theory existed.  Pretending that it didn't is a dirty trick, and not one I'm fond of.  It basically calls me a liar, because I was taught that a new ice age was coming when I went to school growing up.  Claiming now that it was never taught in schools is revisionist history and accuses me of lying.  I really hate that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 24, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> Any sources?
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html


 
I'm too bored to go watch the whole thing again to see what sources he Cited, but if you check the Internet Skeptic's episode on global warming I recall he does cite some studies from the 70's suggesting we need to INCREASE our greenhouse gas emmissions to encourage global warming to fight global cooling.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, they can change Wikipedia entries, but can they change the books that were published by the American Meteorological Society back then?  Nope.



Bill, you're a genius, I just had an epiphany from this.  You've just identified the electronic memory hole.  I suddenly saw Winston Smith editing vast quantities of e-material, purging thoughtcrime.  So much easier then burning.  Crazy stuff.

All of you guys need to download these documents.  It's crazy.  There are lines of computer codes in here and discussion of the techs the CRU hired as they attempt to hide unwanted data and fake others.  The documents and the code for their models regarding how they are pulling off the scam are all here.  This is huge...and again, I'm speechless.

Wow!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2009)

JDenver said:


> In related news, we have no idea how gravity works.  It could be false.
> 
> Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science.  Maybe it isn't there.
> 
> ...



Hyperbole aside, an issue like climate change is different and I'm sure you realize it.  Considering the e-mails and documents released, how can you trust any of the research and data coming from groups involved in these missives?  

That's why I am urging everyone go and read them for themselves.  Do not let the MSM tell you what to think about this.  I've got the whole batch and I've been pouring through it in my spare time, so it's not hard to get first hand experience in this debate.  The bottom line is that the MSM is already trying to spin this thing to show the poor scientists as the real victims and the hackers as the villains.

Meanwhile they talk about the persecution of other scientists, the manipulation of the peer review process, the "fixing" of data, the hiding of data, and the fabrication of data as simply being taken out of context.  It's really funny.  The pro climate change sites do cartwheels trying to explain what the "real" context was, while people just keep posting more and more damning e-mails and documents taken from the batch.  All of these guys have outed themselves as the real shills.  

Don't take my word for it.  Read for yourselves.  Don't let the talking heads fill your head with garbage to tell you what to think.  Use your brain and trust your eyes to read what is really there.  You have the power to discern, people.  Have the humility to eat some crow.  I've got lessons from early in my career where I bought the whole thing hook line and sinker.  Don't worry about it, we're all going to eat a lot of crow when the bigger picture comes to public view.  We'll all be standing there with a big fricken bird in our mouths pointing fingers at each other and laughing at how stupid we've been.  

Then we're going to get really mad, grab our pitchforks and put a stop to this Malthusian madness.


----------



## JDenver (Nov 25, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're arguing that global warming exists.  I agree, it does.
> 
> If you're arguing that global warming was caused by humans, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear-cut.
> 
> And I really mind arguments that do not just try to argue facts, but attempt to belittle - ie, if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid, really stupid.  Like the people who believe that up is down, Santa Claus exists, and so on.  I know that science cannot prove or disprove global warming was caused by humans.  I agree.  So I say we don't know what we don't know.  Let's stop pretending that we do.  Let's not blindly spend trillions of US dollars (and no, other countries won't be asked to pony up on the order that we are) to pay for things that don't fix anything - even assuming that they could.  Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for things that no one knows address a problem that even exists, or that will fix it if it does.



1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything.  Read the posts.  Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.

2. I agree with you on most of what you say.  However, I think the tipping point has been reached.  I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck.  Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something.  I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything.  I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.  

Anyhow, great thread...good talking points.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2009)

JDenver said:


> 1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything.  Read the posts.  Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.



I agree, there is never 100% consensus.



> 2. I agree with you on most of what you say.  However, I think the tipping point has been reached.  I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck.  Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something.  I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything.  I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.



I agree that everybody has an agenda - including the global warming proponents and the oil companies, etc.

Tipping point?  Well, about what?  That global warming exists?  Sure.   That man caused or contributed significantly to it?  I'm not there yet.  And the most important bit - that we can do anything about it no matter what we try?  I'm not even close to that one.

The 'danger in doing something' to me is largely that I fear how much it will cost me personally and our fragile economy in general.  People sure seem to be in a big hurry to spend other people's money, but since I'm still employed and I earn a reasonable income, I'm the one on the hook for all this feel-good crap being proposed.  It's my paycheck that will take the hit.  Forgive me for giving a crap about that, but I do.



> Anyhow, great thread...good talking points.



As I said earlier, I don't think this recent revelation changes the fact that global warming exists, but it does change our understanding of what 'consensus' that it is man-caused might be, and I don't think for the better.

My sincere hope at this point is that the current cap-and-trade legislation in Congress collapses to the ground in utter ruin.  I'll be quite glad of that.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 25, 2009)

Follow the MONEY trail and see where the lines intersect.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2009)

JDenver said:


> 1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything.  Read the posts.  Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.



Does global warming exist?  Are humans causing it?  We don't know.  We need to go back and look at the evidence.  We need to investigate.  How much was faked?  How much was manipulated?  How much contrary research was suppressed?  As a scientist, I certainly realize that science never proves anything, however, that isn't the issue here.  

Apparently, we have some very disturbing information that top scientists who lead a huge research center, have been caught red handed doing some unethical things that have the potential to shift the entire debate toward an outcome that may or may not be true.  Science cannot occur in an environment in which dishonesty exists.  That is the issue.

The compromise is that both sides call for an investigation.  We need to see how for this conspiracy reaches before we can say what may or may not exist in our world.



JDenver said:


> 2. I agree with you on most of what you say.  However, I think the tipping point has been reached.  I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck.  Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something.  I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything.  I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.



The Big Oil companies donate large sums of money to climate change research.  This isn't the 90s where skeptics at the helm attempted to run the theory into the ground.  Things have changed.  Big Oil supports cap and trade.  They support a carbon tax.  Someone play the Twilight Zone music.

I agree, they have an agenda.


----------



## fireman00 (Nov 25, 2009)

Climate change has been occuring for hundreds of thousands of years, for example the last ice age which started about 110,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago... guaranteed it wasn't started because of autos or coal plants.... the change in climate is a natural process. 

The problem is that these environmental scientists LIED, flat out lied about thier findiings in order to promote their agenda. Al Gore and his cronies lied, lied, lied in order to push thier agenda.  

After the U.K's top court found the 9 major deceptions which gave them cause say the movie should not be shown to school children as it was one sided.  This should have given the liars reason to change their story and come out with the truth. 

Tell the truth, say that we should make changes in our habits  in order to clean up the enviornment if fine - and is something we should be done. Don't lie and say that NYC will be under 20 feet of water because I drive an Xterra.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2009)

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm



> *Glaciers:* If the world's mountain glaciers and icecaps melt, sea levels will rise by an estimated 0.5m
> *Thermal expansion:* The expansion of warming oceans was the main factor contributing to sea level rise, in the 20th Century, and currently accounts for more than half of the observed rise in sea levels
> *Ice sheets:* These vast reserves contain billions of tonnes of frozen water - if the largest of them (the East Antarctic Ice Sheet) melts, the global sea level will rise by *an estimated 64m*


Ooh, an 'estimated' 64 meters, eh?  That sounds horrible, doesn't it?  Oh my God, we'll all be under water!!!  Something must be done, you horrible global warming deniers!!!

Oh, but wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise



> Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Based on an analog to the deglaciation of North America at 9,000 years before present, some scientists predict sea level rise of 1.3 metres in the next century.[9][10] However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 800 millimetres, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude and to the sea.[11]


Well, now, which is it?  480 millimeters, 800 millimeters, or 1.3 meters?  And in any case, where's that '64 meters' that the BBC news was just talking about TODAY?

Well, it turns out that yes, if ALL the ice on the Eastern Ice Shelf in Antarctica were to melt TODAY, the oceans would rise quite a bit.  64 meters?  Well, who knows?  Will it happen that ALL the ice melts TODAY?  I'm guessing not.

So here we have it.  It's not a 'lie' exactly.  But it's also not really the truth now, is it?  And it is alarmist claptrap.  Designed to get people stirred up and going 'harrumph' and insisting that 'something must be done'.

To hell with that noise.  It's over.  Global warming alarmists have lost their credibility - not that they ever had any with me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 28, 2009)

To add to the discourse, here is the message board for a science programme on BBC Radio 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7093295


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> To add to the discourse, here is the message board for a science programme on BBC Radio 4:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7093295



It's a replica of discussions going on everywhere at the moment.  I do enjoy reading the back-and-forth between the 'warmers' and the 'deniers' though.

The 'deniers' claim that these emails show that AGW (anthropogenic global warming)  is rather more seriously in doubt than it was previously.  The 'warmers' refuse to argue this.  Instead, they point out that the _'fact that the earth is getting warmer is well-established'_.  Well, yes.  The earth is getting warmer.  But that's not what the 'deniers' are saying.  They're saying that whether it is getting warmer or not, the case for mankind having caused it is weak and now exposed as somewhat weaker than previously thought.

I do enjoy such debates with the polar-bear huggers and the melting-polar-icecap crybabies.  Yes, those things are happening.  Yes, it is alarming how quickly they're happening.  And yes, it may be possible that man's activities have something to do with that.  I agree!  But I do not think it has been proven that man caused this, and I tend to doubt that the trillions of our tax money they intend to spend to 'fix' it will do anything of the kind.

The global climate is changing, and there is precious little we can do about it except adapt.  So let's get busy adapting.


----------



## crushing (Nov 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The global climate is changing, and there is precious little we can do about it except adapt.  So let's get busy adapting.



There has been climate change on earth for nearly 5.5 billion years, is it not about time the earth picked a climate and stuck with it?

More seriously, I'm concerned that a powerful group of people will think the earth should have a certain climate and try things to force it into that climate without completely understanding the consequences of their actions.  Oh wait. . .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2009)

crushing said:


> There has been climate change on earth for nearly 5.5 billion years, is it not about time the earth picked a climate and stuck with it?
> 
> More seriously, I'm concerned that a powerful group of people will think the earth should have a certain climate and try things to force it into that climate without completely understanding the consequences of their actions.  Oh wait. . .



I agree.  Further to that, I am always somewhat amused by those who are in favor of 'natural' things.

Such as artificially keeping species alive that would otherwise go extinct.  Yes, some of them go extinct due to man's actions, but some do not, and we frankly don't always know which is which.  But the tree-huggers appear to want a 'steady state' where nothing changes; no more extinctions.

Same for those who want to control pests, etc, in a 'natural' way, such as by introducing competing or antagonistic species instead of using chemicals or other 'artificial' means of controlling them.  Works well, for example kudzu and Africanized bees and chinese carp.

It was not that long ago that earth experienced a global ice age that apparently winnowed the entire human race down to just a few thousand individuals; we very nearly went extinct ourselves.  We are now more capable of dealing with radical climate changes, but instead of thinking about that, we try instead to change the climate itself.  Let's see, shall I put on a sweater before going out, or shall I warm the earth so I don't need one; or vice-versa; instead of keeping ourselves cool, let's cool the earth.

We are intelligent, tool-using creatures that can adapt to changing environments better than most species.  If global warming is coming and cannot be stopped, then it would appear to me to be a better solution to prepare to deal with that.


----------



## girlbug2 (Nov 28, 2009)

To my mind, the only merit in debating whether global warming is being caused by humans is, to decide the question of whether or not we _should_ be doing something about it.

If it is a natural process, then all the effects around us that we see are part of that natural process. It means that Nature is taking its course in changing not only the face of our planet, but also the changing and removal of many of the species on the planet. It may seem heartless of me to say it, but if a species is supposed to die, then let it die. That's how natural selection works. So perhaps then, polar bears cannot adapt and are destined for extinction...who are we to try to stop it?  Why should we be messing with the biological niches being set up, altered, wiped out and recreated by this ancient process?

If OTOH, global warming is caused or influenced by humans, then we do have a moral imperative to do something about it, but ONLY if we can be truly effective in applying our "cure". That raises the next question, of how can we be sure our "cure" really will work, or even that it will help somewhat. Remember, our stupidity supposedly caused the problem in the first place...perhaps it's better to back off and leave it alone, than to muck things up further with our collective "wisdom" (note Bill's examples in the above post, with the africanized honey bees and the carp).

So if someday there really is a consensus among climatologists that global warming is man-caused, then surely our answer should be to simply stop doing whatever is determined to be the cause. Not to throw money at a quick fix, but cease emissions. Period. Let the Earth heal itself in time. Ah, but I know that that's unrealistic, naiive of me, to expect. Politicians will convince us to simply throw money at the problem, nothing will be solved, but rather, new problems created by our further interference. That is the scenario which deniers are trying to avoid, I think, and the agenda behind the push of the warmers. "Let's forcibly fund our solution at taxpayer expense, get money into the pockets of the correct people, put more power into the hands of certain parties to further our political goals..." No thanks. The debate ends there as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> To my mind, the only merit in debating whether global warming is being caused by humans is, to decide the question of whether or not we _should_ be doing something about it.



To my way of thinking, a valid question would also be whether or not we **can** do anything about it.  With the models in use as 'cooked' as they appear to be, I do not think that is a given. A monstrous amount of money being pledged to change something that may have no effect - or not the effect desired.  Remember, they're asking us to attempt to tinker with the global climate here.  That thought alone should give people pause.



> If it is a natural process, then all the effects around us that we see are part of that natural process. It means that Nature is taking its course in changing not only the face of our planet, but also the changing and removal of many of the species on the planet. It may seem heartless of me to say it, but if a species is supposed to die, then let it die. That's how natural selection works. So perhaps then, polar bears cannot adapt and are destined for extinction...who are we to try to stop it?  Why should we be messing with the biological niches being set up, altered, wiped out and recreated by this ancient process?



In the sense that polar bears are cool (no pun intended) and we'd like to have them around for future generations to enjoy, I get it.  In the sense you mentioned, I get that too.

However, humans are natural.  What we do, all of it from building high-rise skyscrapers to living in caves, is natural.  How could it be otherwise?  That we use tools, that we alter our environments (not climate, that's different), that we create compounds not seen before on earth - all natural - and rejecting that means rejecting humans as a species.  We are doing what evolution selected us to do.

On the other hand, in many ways we are post-evolutionary.  We allow humans to live who would not otherwise live.   My own poor vision and diabetes and bad teeth would have had me quite dead by now, and in no way could our planet support anything near the current human population by hunting/gathering and basic agriculture.



> If OTOH, global warming is caused or influenced by humans, then we do have a moral imperative to do something about it, but ONLY if we can be truly effective in applying our "cure".



I kind of agree, but I also kind of don't think this is a moral issue.  Our ancestors may (or may not) have eaten the mastodons into extinction.  This is a problem?  This should not have happened?  And what, we should feel guilty about it now?  Not attacking your statements, just a general observation here.



> That raises the next question, of how can we be sure our "cure" really will work, or even that it will help somewhat. Remember, our stupidity supposedly caused the problem in the first place...perhaps it's better to back off and leave it alone, than to muck things up further with our collective "wisdom" (note Bill's examples in the above post, with the africanized honey bees and the carp).



Bingo.  It seems to me to be the height of hubris to presume that we have the ability to wreck the planet - or the ability to fix it.  And it smacks of that hand-wringing _'but we have to do something'_ mantra of the loony left.  Doing 'something' for the sake of doing anything is about as dumb as I can imagine.



> So if someday there really is a consensus among climatologists that global warming is man-caused, then surely our answer should be to simply stop doing whatever is determined to be the cause. Not to throw money at a quick fix, but cease emissions. Period. Let the Earth heal itself in time. Ah, but I know that that's unrealistic, naiive of me, to expect. Politicians will convince us to simply throw money at the problem, nothing will be solved, but rather, new problems created by our further interference. That is the scenario which deniers are trying to avoid, I think, and the agenda behind the push of the warmers. "Let's forcibly fund our solution at taxpayer expense, get money into the pockets of the correct people, put more power into the hands of certain parties to further our political goals..." No thanks. The debate ends there as far as I'm concerned.



I think not crapping where we eat is a good thing.  Learning and applying proper waste management is a good thing.  Not putting poisons into our air, water and land is a good thing.  Being good stewards in general is a good thing.  And most of those things can and are being done; I do not mind further efforts in this area.  Those are things that if they do no real good, at least they do no harm, and they do not cost that much comparatively.  Learning to be less destructive of our environment in general; great and I'm all for it.

Trying to change the climate by draconian measures that will bankrupt our economies, destroy our industrial bases, and have no idea of the outcome?  Bad idea.  Bad science, and bad politics.  I am against it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2009)

In my opinion, "climate change" has nothing to do with actual climate or science any more.  What we are dealing with, goes deeper.  You can go to the Oracle of Google and start clicking your way through links in the CFR, Bliderberg, Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, all sorts of internationalist/globalist organizations...look specifically for Maurice Strong, Club of Rome, carbon taxes and world government.

When I have time, I'll write a more properly sourced article, here's a synopsis, however.

The Central Banks of this world control everything through the issuance of a debt based fiat currency.  The problem with this model of control is that eventually the currency debases to a point where it's worthless.  We are reaching this point as we speak.  When this happens, chaos obviously ensues because the economy that supports people no longer functions.  Several times in history, liberty has sprouted from chaos, as the central bankers have lost control.

We now live in a global world with an established international finance structure that effectively controls the economy of the world and allows a parasitic banking elite to flourish off the labor of others.  In the early 90s members of the UN began talking about how they were going to vertically integrate these financial systems into a single global entity that had the ability to do what they were doing now, but had no way of completely collapsing like the current system.

In particular, meetings by the Club of Rome discussed how various threats could be manipulated on a global scale in order to bring the nations together to form this global finance structure (that is all the term "world government" really means anyway).  One of the things that was discussed was the fact that the Cold War could no longer be used to manipulate people and a new "threat" had to discovered.  In another meeting, it was decided upon that global environment issues would become the new "threat" and that a new "Gaia" religion would be formed around said issues and the dogma would be slowly taught to the people of the world until it was time to put in the actual structure for the new global financial system.

As the Duke of Wellington indicated 200 years ago, the battle would be won in the school yard.  I remember going to school and being completely indoctrinated into the new environmental zeitgiest.  I finished High School in 1995 and I can tell you from experience, that the training was in full swing by then.  The text books all spoke about how humans were changing the planet and that we were putting civilization at risk and that something needed to be done.  On the television, program after program stressed the same messages that were trundled out in the schools.  It turns out that the textbooks and the programs were all founded by foundations connected to the globalist groups.

Meanwhile, real environmental issues were pretty much ignored.  As part of my Eagle Scout project, I cleaned up a trout stream and attempted to take on the industries bordering my project because they were dumping chemicals directly into the water.  I went to local government meetings and spoke at length about what I was doing and what I was witnessing and was basically told to "bugger off" and go be a good boy.  What they were doing was legal and they weren't going to stop just because some idealistic Boy Scout gave a damn about the floura and fauna and human health down stream.  Thus enters my existence as a politically active individual.

Anyway, if we fast forward to 2005, I had just finished my Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction with special emphasis on science.  From the deep research that I did, it became apparent that all of the curriculum in schools was being directed from the top down by a handful of foundations.  The textbook publishers that public schools were allowed to use, offered books with the same content and different window dressing.  All of the science books I reviewed highlighted global environmental issues, taught the accepted position of the science, and pointed the students toward internationalist solutions that were being performed by various groups under the UN umbrella.  Al Gore's movie pretty much summed it up and put the cherry on top.

The end result of this is that now we have a public that is convinced that the science is in, that "global warming" is happening and that humans are causing it.  Ideas that were test marketed in the early 2000s are now being trundled out in the form of multi-thousand page bills that haven't been read.  Ideas like "cap and trade" and the "carbon tax" are touted as the only real solution to this man-made global environmental terror.  The popular view of humans espoused everywhere in the media is summed up here in this sixty second movie.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x53k8k_humans-cool-cartoon_fun

The message, humans are bad, they need to be controlled or the earth will die.

Cap and trade and the carbon tax will lead to the new global financial structure.  The carbon tax is ultimately a tax on the carbon cycle.  Everything that humans do, including procreating, and breathing could be taxed and the proceeds would flow to the new international finance oligarchs.  Cap and trade will create a system of credits that are based off of the evil carbon and meant to control it.  A new form of global currency will be based off of the issuance and trade of these credits.  When people do "green" things, they will be paid in these credits.  When they do "bad" things, they will have to pay these credits AND be taxed.  This new system allows the global finance oligarchs to control the system in even more draconian ways then the debt based fiat currency ever allowed.

I can see people paying for all goods in carbon credits.  I can see people being issued a card and every action having a carbon price tag attached.  I can see carbon credits being leveraged into a new kind of banking system where people accrue a "carbon debt" and are basically slaves of that debt until they die.  People will be born with carbon debt.  That's what all of this is pointing toward and the people constructing the system are quite candid about it.  "Global warming" isn't about the science, it's a geopolitical tool that's being used to push society in a particular direction.  

This is neo-feudalism, folks.  Check it out for yourselves.  These e-mails are just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting...
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> 
> ...


 
Bill, 

Global Warming and cooling does happen. The time of 400 BC to just before 400 AD grain was easily grown in areas northern Europe that are covered in snow most of the year. (* History Channel - Little Ice Age Big Chill *)

Most of the measurements recently are being compared to the dark ages (* which were dark because they were cold and damp *) the valley recorded in the middle 19th century that lead to books like Frankenstien and Dracula being written. (* Who said global warming or cooling in this case does not effect society. *) 

That being said, humans have done a lot to cut down the natual cooling elements such as rain forests. But, to change the thermal mass of the ocean by 1 deg and not change the air by a lot more would require the heat source to come from another source then solar load on the water. It would have to some from underneath. A source that most humans have no contol over nor effect on for how the core spins and how the magma and pressure is released. 

Vehicles today produce very little CO, if any, the poison that would kill people, as this is why their are emission components and sensors to make sure those components are working and a light coming on your dash when it is not working to the defined specificaiton.

Larger sources were power companies burning sulfur coal and many state agencies and even the EPA have stepped up in the last couple of years to address this. 

But there are still loop holes. Such as 24 average for emissions, so if you have something to burn that is above the average you burn it at night when less people are likely to see or smell it and that short couple of hour peak is above the target, but the 24 hour average is still below the target. 

The loop holes are there for technology and cost, sometimes the technology is not there, and this is the best way to control, other times the technology might be there but so cost prohibitive that anyone who tried to implement them would be out of business. 

My point is that I have no data for and no data against global warming. But I have seen the LA air get better, and other quality imrpovements of air. But the large scale effects are most likely coming from sources with large scale impact, such as core movement and Magnetic North moving, and or Solar Storms, not your car. But, I like clean air, and not passing out if I run my car for a few minutes in the garage. 

 

I support your desire to buy the SUV's,  (* I coudl get you a discount on a Hybrid SUV if you want. *)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here's what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm
> 
> ...


 
Bill, I did the math a few years ago, what most people forget is that ICE or solid water displaces more volume then it does in liquid form. Once you account for the decrease in the volume displacement just for state change the numbers are not quite so bad. So the 400 millimeter is about the closest I saw for the numbers I ran. Ice estimates and volume of ice has changed as well, so this could allow for some variation. 

I also remember that if there was a 1 deg rise in the temperature of the oceans all costal cities (* circa late 1970's *) would be under water. 

People make claims to get attention or leave out key data so their numbers are scarier. In the end, they just make people numb to the issue and if there is a real problem you get this bipolar split of faith on yes it is or no it is not.


----------

