The unrest over the stolen e-mails continue to ramble under the surface of Tiger Wood's womenizing and BBC polls, so lets start of with the report of the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis claiming that "the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data."
An email from Jones to Mann in March 2004 stated:
QuoteRecently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL
Yesterday's report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:
QuoteClimategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century..
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources
And altough I am full aware that global warming is supposed to make northern europe cooler, I still find this pic funny in light of the blizzard hitting the climate conference in Denmark:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv302%2Fspfisk%2F2_219068e.jpg&hash=182182450089dd5bbf9ad7dbb82e291439dac0a5)
Contiuing to steal from Paradox OT, here is the article of some Dr David Evans who was supposedly a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005:
QuoteI DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
And to see that I want debate here, an Economist article tearing apart a sceptic's cry of manipulation:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists?source=most_commented (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists?source=most_commented)
I'd like to see some more details before I take a story from a petrostate news agency at total face value - during the Copenhagen conference both Saudi Arabia and Russia have mentioned 'climategate' as reasons not to do anything, so I'm not wholly convinced by the OP.
Edit: Incidentally I agree with Nick Cohen that we shouldn't use the word 'sceptic' to describe climate change dissenters, I suppose. Scepticism's a noble tradition and one of the origins of scientific inquiry. It seems to me insane that it's now a title we give people who object to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and to my understanding the only internally coherent explanation for climate change.
I've no problem of course with debating what to do about it, I think that's entirely valid and it's unfortunate that environmentalism has segued into a pre-existing anti-capitalist movement, rebels looking for a cause.
Clearly Tamas the answer is to vote Palin in 2012. Her Facebook treatises on the subject of AGW have convinced me of organized science's Big Lie. If only we can convince the rest of the world of the huge mistake they're making in investing in energy efficiency and alternative fuels!
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 05:28:01 AM
I'd like to see some more details before I take a story from a petrostate news agency at total face value - during the Copenhagen conference both Saudi Arabia and Russia have mentioned 'climategate' as reasons not to do anything, so I'm not wholly convinced by the OP.
Edit: Incidentally I agree with Nick Cohen that we shouldn't use the word 'sceptic' to describe climate change dissenters, I suppose. Scepticism's a noble tradition and one of the origins of scientific inquiry. It seems to me insane that it's now a title we give people who object to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and to my understanding the only internally coherent explanation for climate change.
I've no problem of course with debating what to do about it, I think that's entirely valid and it's unfortunate that environmentalism has segued into a pre-existing anti-capitalist movement, rebels looking for a cause.
So what is the right word, if not scepticism? :huh: It seems quite clear that humans being the main cause of GW can only be "proved" if the scientistis dismiss the datas suggesting otherwise.
In fact, the term "dissenter" is much worse, it is degrading. And even if there are morons among the "sceptics", not only there are far more in the followers of official canon, at least now there is discussion and debate, following these leaked e-mails. Something which was missing almost completely before that, a fact which alone raises suspicion. When you have something with so many assumptions as the currently accepted climate models (we can't even model such "minor" parts of weather and climate as the mechanics of cloud-forming to cite just a single example), it is very fishy to refuse to debate and argue over it.
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 05:50:47 AM
Clearly Tamas the answer is to vote Palin in 2012. Her Facebook treatises on the subject of AGW have convinced me of organized science's Big Lie. If only we can convince the rest of the world of the huge mistake they're making in investing in energy efficiency and alternative fuels!
You are such a shallow and weak troll that it pains me to answer. Still: the sceptics has the noise of Palin and his ilk of braindead nazis, the official line has the noise of treehuggers and religiously apologetic masses. It evens out
Palin is not merely noise. She's the face of America's right wing. If you want to look for fellow science denialists allies across the sea, there is no better standard bearer. :lol:
Even if this is true, we should still develop clean energy for other environmental reasons and the simple fact that the oil will eventually run out.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2009, 06:22:54 AM
Even if this is true, we should still develop clean energy for other environmental reasons and the simple fact that the oil will eventually run out.
Of course. That is obvious.
However, it is horrible that right now in Copenhagen, there are international negotiations going on to seriously weaken economies (and that does not mean that the rich gets slightly less rich, but that the poor becomes poorer due to increased costs and lost jobs), based on research which apparently uses chery-picked sources for "conclusion"
The travesty is that we don't have VP Palin in Copenhagen right now defending the right of economics to prosper. :mad:
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:32:04 AM
The travesty is that we don't have VP Palin in Copenhagen right now defending the right of economics to prosper. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meikathon.net%2Froflmao%2Ffacepalm.jpg&hash=0bfe376763f8647445044b752cd482ec52df1e3f)
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 07:29:43 AM
(...) based on research which apparently uses chery-picked sources for "conclusion"
And your "conclusion" is based on some leaked e-mails... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 07:47:01 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:32:04 AM
The travesty is that we don't have VP Palin in Copenhagen right now defending the right of economics to prosper. :mad:
(snip)
I cannot believe that you continue to feed this troll. Believe me, if nobody here feeds him, he will get hungry enough to find another bridge to hide under.
You should listen to grumbler. He knows from deep personal experience on how lonely get its on Languish when no one bites.
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 05:17:48 AM
Contiuing to steal from Paradox OT, here is the article of some Dr David Evans who was supposedly a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005:
(snip)
This guy would be a lot more credible if he talked like a scientist. Scientists don't say things like (my bolds)
QuoteIf there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.
or
Quotestatistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot
. Real scientists don't talk like this; they know that they do not know
anything "for sure."
QuoteThere is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
Of course there isn't. We don't have experimental planets on which such evidence could be gathered. There is also no evidence to support the idea that the dinosaurs died out because of a meteor strike, since we have not seen planets with dinosaurs and no meteor strike. Science does not work the way his comment suggests.
This doesn't mean that he is wrong, of course. But I think honest skepticism would serve his cause better in the long run than dismissing his opponents as the "alarmist scientists" and publishing conclusions no professional scientist wuld argue are scientific.
Caveat lector - if you leave grumbler alone he will return to his cave and return to commenting only on Babylon 5 and Oblivion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 05:28:01 AM
Incidentally I agree with Nick Cohen that we shouldn't use the word 'sceptic' to describe climate change dissenters, I suppose. Scepticism's a noble tradition and one of the origins of scientific inquiry. It seems to me insane that it's now a title we give people who object to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and to my understanding the only internally coherent explanation for climate change.
I really
hate this movement towards dismissing honest dissenting opinion as unworthy. Now it seems that one cannot even be "skeptical" in the face of dogma, as the dogmatists insist that the term "skepticism" is too "noble" for their opponents.
I am skeptical about the intellectual honesty of anyone claiming that opposing opinion is too ignoble to qualify as skepticism. :frog:
The Russian article seems to consist of whining that nobody pays enough attention to Russia.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2009, 06:22:54 AM
Even if this is true, we should still develop clean energy for other environmental reasons and the simple fact that the oil will eventually run out.
Yep. Environmentalists are useful idiots for getting this project moving forward though.
Save the planet invest in energy production!
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:18:16 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2009, 06:22:54 AM
Even if this is true, we should still develop clean energy for other environmental reasons and the simple fact that the oil will eventually run out.
Yep. Environmentalists are useful idiots for getting this project moving forward though.
Save the planet invest in energy production!
I'm still not buying panels.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 08:26:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 05:28:01 AM
Incidentally I agree with Nick Cohen that we shouldn't use the word 'sceptic' to describe climate change dissenters, I suppose. Scepticism's a noble tradition and one of the origins of scientific inquiry. It seems to me insane that it's now a title we give people who object to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and to my understanding the only internally coherent explanation for climate change.
I really hate this movement towards dismissing honest dissenting opinion as unworthy. Now it seems that one cannot even be "skeptical" in the face of dogma, as the dogmatists insist that the term "skepticism" is too "noble" for their opponents.
I am skeptical about the intellectual honesty of anyone claiming that opposing opinion is too ignoble to qualify as skepticism. :frog:
It was quite surprising to read it from Sheilbh, honestly. I respect him the most among the posters here, he often seems out of place on Languish with his well thought-out and reasonable arguments, I say this even if we are often on opposite ends of the fence. So to have him declare that "sceptics" are too noble a title to apply for critics of the HMGW (human made global warming, trademark) was quite the thing. :huh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 10:50:01 AM
I'm still not buying panels.
That's ok. We will invent something better and cheaper one of these days.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 10:50:01 AM
I'm still not buying panels.
That's ok. We will invent something better and cheaper one of these days.
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 10:50:01 AM
I'm still not buying panels.
That's ok. We will invent something better and cheaper one of these days.
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Did you hear the story this past week about the side effect of the energy efficient lights in traffic lights? They aren't warm enough to melt the snow and ice hitting the midwest :lol:
Quote from: katmai on December 18, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 10:50:01 AM
I'm still not buying panels.
That's ok. We will invent something better and cheaper one of these days.
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Did you hear the story this past week about the side effect of the energy efficient lights in traffic lights? They aren't warm enough to melt the snow and ice hitting the midwest :lol:
har.
Quote from: katmai on December 18, 2009, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 10:50:01 AM
I'm still not buying panels.
That's ok. We will invent something better and cheaper one of these days.
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Did you hear the story this past week about the side effect of the energy efficient lights in traffic lights? They aren't warm enough to melt the snow and ice hitting the midwest :lol:
I would have hoped that would have been considered before using the lights, given the possible weather conditions. :huh:
Hmm... maybe they can use small electric powered heaters in the lights. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 06:00:47 AM
So what is the right word, if not scepticism? :huh: It seems quite clear that humans being the main cause of GW can only be "proved" if the scientistis dismiss the datas suggesting otherwise.
I would say dissent. They are dissenting from the scientific norm, I don't consider people who have an objection to the idea of anthropogenic climate change or the greenhouse effect to be much more sceptical, in the truest sense of the word, than people who have issues with evolution. Like evolution, or the universe, we can't do an experiment to see what's really happening.
We have, however a valid theory based on science a couple of centuries old that different scientific teams in different countries choosing different datasets finds explains their different but consistent results.
QuoteIn fact, the term "dissenter" is much worse, it is degrading. And even if there are morons among the "sceptics", not only there are far more in the followers of official canon, at least now there is discussion and debate, following these leaked e-mails. Something which was missing almost completely before that, a fact which alone raises suspicion.
Well it wasn't missing. The Spectator did a bumper issue on why the world isn't cooling, the mainstream Republican party was broadly suspicious of the idea of anthropogenic climate change, the Telegraph (third biggest selling paper in the country) has someone blogging against it, books by people like Nigel Lawson and others are best sellers. I think the debate has been there because there's a market for it. However I do think it needs to be contextualised. While some worry about the economic cost - which I've no problem with - a lot of these people are saying that the vast majority of scientific opinion is wrong and then retrofit an argument to that. I don't consider that any more sceptical than people who don't accept evolution, or who worry about the MMR vaccine, or believe homeopathy works.
Dissent's a noble tradition too but I think scepticism is too associated with science.
QuoteI'm still not buying panels.
Apparently from an environmental perspective they're not much use :lol:
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2009, 11:08:17 AM
Hmm... maybe they can use small electric powered heaters in the lights. ;)
I've heard this mentioned, but it'd be hilarious if the heaters used more power than the original bulbs would have in the first place :)
But I'm sure there's a design/coating solution to the problem.
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2009, 11:08:17 AM
Hmm... maybe they can use small electric powered heaters in the lights. ;)
I've heard this mentioned, but it'd be hilarious if the heaters used more power than the original bulbs would have in the first place :)
But I'm sure there's a design/coating solution to the problem.
Maybe small nuclear reactors on each street corner that has these lights. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 05:28:01 AM
Edit: Incidentally I agree with Nick Cohen that we shouldn't use the word 'sceptic' to describe climate change dissenters, I suppose. Scepticism's a noble tradition and one of the origins of scientific inquiry. It seems to me insane that it's now a title we give people who object to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and to my understanding the only internally coherent explanation for climate change.
Yes, by all means be more condescending. That's what your side needs.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
Cilmate change is too politicized now. If the politicians had stayed out they might have got their way a lot easier.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
I sometimes find my twisty lightbulbs to be too bright.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
The funny looking ones? the light is so sickly yellow, it makes me ill on some days.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:41:12 AM
The funny looking ones? the light is so sickly yellow, it makes me ill on some days.
Yep the twisty ones. I use them whenever I can...sometimes older light fixtures cannot fit them so I have to go old school.
I have only noticed the twisty ones are brighter but I have not noticed the...color of the light or whatever but you are not the only person to complain about that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
The funny looking ones? the light is so sickly yellow, it makes me ill on some days.
Soviet gulag look, coming back into style?? ;)
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2009, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
I also hate those new lightbulbs. Weak, yellow light. :mad:
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
The funny looking ones? the light is so sickly yellow, it makes me ill on some days.
Soviet gulag look, coming back into style?? ;)
More like 1970's hospital look.
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2009, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
Really? Mine burn with the light of a million energy efficient suns.
I sometimes find my twisty lightbulbs to be too bright.
We mostly use the IKEA ones that have the rubberized bulb covering. Looks like the newer versions are starting to warm up faster. But by the time they perfect them, affordable LED bulbs will be all the rage.
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 11:20:41 AM
Yes, by all means be more condescending. That's what your side needs.
I don't have a side in the debate. I think I'd err to basically a British conservative position on this subject. I think technological innovation and green consumerism will save us*, but that moving away from carbon energy would be good because oil hurts everyone involved (states with oil get fucked, states dependant on oil get cosy with horrid petrostates).
But I don't see why doubting the preponderance of scientific evidence should be considered 'scepticism'. In the same way as I think a lot of people who say they're sceptical about politics aren't. They're cynical and there's a huge difference.
* Look up Boris Johnson and George Monbiot in the Guardian for a great example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 12:20:49 PM
I think technological innovation and green consumerism will save us*
* Look up Boris Johnson and George Monbiot in the Guardian for a great example.
Tom Friedman from NYT is on the same bandwagon.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 01:13:26 PM
Nonsense. :alberta:
:lol: True. The UK, Norway, US and Canada do fine. I mean the developing world - where most of the oil is.
Quote from: citizen k on December 18, 2009, 12:23:44 PM
Tom Friedman from NYT is on the same bandwagon.
....Then I'll have to reconsider :P
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 05:17:48 AM
Contiuing to steal from Paradox OT, here is the article of some Dr David Evans who was supposedly a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005:
Do you know who this guy is, really?
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
Quote from: viper37 on December 18, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Do you know who this guy is, really?
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
I still don't know who this guy is, really.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
We have, however a valid theory based on science a couple of centuries old that different scientific teams in different countries choosing different datasets finds explains their different but consistent results.
No we don't, and that is one of the big problems for the climate scientists (which the evolutionary scientists don't suffer from, and pretending otherwise isn't on): there
is no theory for global climate change. Not in the scientific sense. There are several hypotheses, but no theory ("valid" or otherwise) that produces testable predictions about global climate change. There simply isn't enough evidence.
This isn't to say that there isn't a general scientific consensus that man-made pollution is causing climate change, nor that the opponents of this consensus do not have, at this point, the burden of proof, but the "science" on global climate change is more like the science on gravity than it is like that on evolution.
Quote from: viper37 on December 18, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2009, 05:17:48 AM
Contiuing to steal from Paradox OT, here is the article of some Dr David Evans who was supposedly a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005:
Do you know who this guy is, really?
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
That could have been written by a Languishite. "Rocket science" in common parlance is only the science of designing rockets? Really?
I agree that Evans isn't particularly credible, but my problem isn't with his use of the vernacular term "rocket scientist!"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 02:28:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 18, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Do you know who this guy is, really?
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
I still don't know who this guy is, really.
He is an Aussie who is attempting to trade on the fact that he worked on a model to account for CO2 sequestration to make his pronouncements on GCC sound more credible than they are.
He isn't really a scientist at all. He is an engineer, and should stick to pronouncements on the use of cinder block in electrical circuitry.
Meh, all this "controversy" will do is entrench the vitriolic radicals on both side, while the great middle mass will forget it ever happened inside a month.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 03:04:36 PM
Meh, all this "controversy" will do is entrench the vitriolic radicals on both side, while the great middle mass will forget it ever happened inside a month.
The great unwashed masses will remember very quickly once we get into real emissions caps.
I have nothing to add other than to say I doubt anyone with average or better intelligence would use the word "climategate"
Here's a very dry op-ed piece, but I thought it was pertinent to the thread. It was in today's WSJ but also appears here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11072
Quote from: Maximus on December 18, 2009, 03:57:06 PM
I have nothing to add other than to say I doubt anyone with average or better intelligence would use the word "climategate"
Good point. What should we call it?
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
Here's a very dry op-ed piece, but I thought it was pertinent to the thread. It was in today's WSJ but also appears here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11072
So based on leaked emails from one university, we know "climate change" is a decades long consipiracy based on manipulated data?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 03:14:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 03:04:36 PM
Meh, all this "controversy" will do is entrench the vitriolic radicals on both side, while the great middle mass will forget it ever happened inside a month.
The great unwashed masses will remember very quickly once we get into real emissions caps.
From what I have read, we'll have run out of oil by then, and society will have collapsed into a Mad Max-world.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 18, 2009, 04:01:47 PM
So based on leaked emails from one university, we know "climate change" is a decades long consipiracy based on manipulated data?
We "know" that scientists conspired to have people who disagreed with them ousted from editorial positions in some peer-reviewed journals. We know that the data was manipulated (as is almost all published scientific data) but also that at least one of the scientists who published such work threatened to stop seeking publication if he had to provide the raw data from which he derived the manipulated (aka useful) data.
Again, what this shows is that scientists are human... human enough to try to stop the publication of inconvenient truths. This should not be news. I don't think that it can account for the degree to which climate scientists have concurred with the idea of human-based climate change, though. After all, if this was a conspiracy, it was secret, right? Secrets don't create wide-spread consensus.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 04:31:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 18, 2009, 04:01:47 PM
So based on leaked emails from one university, we know "climate change" is a decades long consipiracy based on manipulated data?
We "know" that scientists conspired to have people who disagreed with them ousted from editorial positions in some peer-reviewed journals. We know that the data was manipulated (as is almost all published scientific data) but also that at least one of the scientists who published such work threatened to stop seeking publication if he had to provide the raw data from which he derived the manipulated (aka useful) data.
Again, what this shows is that scientists are human... human enough to try to stop the publication of inconvenient truths. This should not be news. I don't think that it can account for the degree to which climate scientists have concurred with the idea of human-based climate change, though. After all, if this was a conspiracy, it was secret, right? Secrets don't create wide-spread consensus.
Conspiracy is too strong a word. I am fairly certain that what happens with these manipulated climate data, happens with mostly everything in science, probably up to the lets-try-and-silence-opposition part. As you said, science folks are human to. And they are nerds as well which has to make their intrique all the worse.
However, there are a few key unique aspects of this field. First of all, that unlike, say, the field of studying birds' mating habits, what these guys declare has VAST economical, political, and social consequences.
As for the term climategate, it is how the whole issue is referenced around the interwebs, so I thought it would do for the thread.
Oh and I read that the stuff they signed in Denmark includes a cap of maximum 2C warming allowed from pre-industrial levels. So cute. :lol:
I think they will have to sue Mother Earth if it turns out the average temperature fluctuates even without human influence (which we know it does)
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 04:31:24 PM
We "know" that scientists conspired to have people who disagreed with them ousted from editorial positions in some peer-reviewed journals. We know that the data was manipulated (as is almost all published scientific data) but also that at least one of the scientists who published such work threatened to stop seeking publication if he had to provide the raw data from which he derived the manipulated (aka useful) data.
Again, what this shows is that scientists are human... human enough to try to stop the publication of inconvenient truths. This should not be news. I don't think that it can account for the degree to which climate scientists have concurred with the idea of human-based climate change, though. After all, if this was a conspiracy, it was secret, right? Secrets don't create wide-spread consensus.
Had a nice reply going, then I accidentally closed the tab... <_<
I agree with this assessment, and have seen it first-hand in other areas. Sometimes the impact is negligible, sometimes it upsets key components of a body of knowledge. I've never, however, seen anything amounting to a paradigm shift as a result of new, conflicting data. Rejecting the idea that humans can change the climate would amount to a paradigm shift.
That said, the high level of politicization this issue has undergone does appear to have created a climate (no pun intended) of widespread confirmation bias. The effects of that could be very damaging, since policies that have significant socioeconomic impacts are being proposed or enacted based on specific theories of how we impact the climate. If those theories are incomplete, inadequate, or flat wrong we could be incurring significant costs for useless or counterproductive actions.
One thing I find especially disturbing about this topic is the scientists involved attempt to portray themselves as being above such biases. This has resulted in increased polarization and the tendency to dismiss critics of specific theories as biased, unscientific hacks. That there are biased, unscientific hacks amongst the critics just makes it worse. There are plenty of biased, unscientific hacks all across the spectrum on this issue, but since it gets divided into a nice, clean "pro vs. con" position the "pro" hacks hide behind the mantle of science, in turn doing a disservice to this issue in particular and science in general.
I sort of agree with grumbler's view on the whole 'climategate' thing (when will we stop using -gate to indicate scandal?) except for two points.
One is that they also tried to suppress data from a freedom of information request which is shameful and should be illegal. The second is that many of these e-mails came from Dr. Jones the head of the CRU. He should be more responsible because if the head of a research unit (or a company or anything else) behaves in a way that shows contempt for opponents and for the the process and the spirit of the university (company, whatever else) then that percolates down.
I think he was entirely right to resign. However does this show there's a conspiracy? Not by a long stretch. Maybe there's a conspiracy in Norwich but that's all.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 18, 2009, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
Here's a very dry op-ed piece, but I thought it was pertinent to the thread. It was in today's WSJ but also appears here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11072
So based on leaked emails from one university, we know "climate change" is a decades long consipiracy based on manipulated data?
Not quite. Michaels agrees with the basic science behind climate change. He accepts greenhouse gases (a theory which has been around for a few centuries) and that temperature is rising. However he doesn't think it'll necessarily be disastrous. It could, in his opinion, be minor and sometimes beneficial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXJlBd3Mf8
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 02:51:34 PM
This isn't to say that there isn't a general scientific consensus that man-made pollution is causing climate change, nor that the opponents of this consensus do not have, at this point, the burden of proof, but the "science" on global climate change is more like the science on gravity than it is like that on evolution.
I'd say gravitation is quite a bit stronger. Unlike applied climatology, gravity has been studied extensively and at great expense for years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 19, 2009, 12:02:45 PM
He accepts greenhouse gases (a theory which has been around for a few centuries)
Fourier wasn't even born 300 years ago.
Actually, I can't think of anyone credible who doesn't accept the concept of greenhouse gases.
There is more consensus on applied climatology than there is on quantum gravity.
Let's see what Sarah Palin has to say on her twatter account in reponse to Obama's Copenhagen remarks:
Quote
Arrogant&Naive2say man overpwers nature, Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng"
Just think of much better off we'd be with Republicans in control of the executive branch.
Quote from: Fate on December 19, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
There is more consensus on applied climatology than there is on quantum gravity.
Irrelevant. We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2009, 09:01:45 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 19, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
There is more consensus on applied climatology than there is on quantum gravity.
Irrelevant. We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.
Let me know when you can prove the existence of a graviton. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Fate on December 19, 2009, 09:07:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2009, 09:01:45 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 19, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
There is more consensus on applied climatology than there is on quantum gravity.
Irrelevant. We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.
Let me know when you can prove the existence of a graviton. :rolleyes:
Why would I want to?
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2009, 09:01:45 PM
Irrelevant. We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.
Actually, no. We don't have a single practical (i.e. applies in the universe that exists) gravity theory of which I am aware. Laws, yes. Theories, no.
Ditto for climate. Lots of observations and "laws" but no real theories.
We don't even know what gravity
is; just that it exists.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
Relativity says gravity isn't caused by mass, but by some function that combines mass, momentum, and a bunch of other stuff. A lot of that is applicable only near light-speeds (which exist in the real universe, unlike my inaccurate generalization above, but are difficult to see/measure/comprehend). As Einstein himself noted, though, the theory he was proposing was incomplete, and no one has satisfactorily completed it, insofar as I know. Not for lack of trying...
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
Since quantum mechanics has been begun to be understand we've realised there's a problem with Einstein's theory of relativity which is that it just doesn't work at the level of atoms and so on.
Since then the holy grail (stay away Tim :P) of physics has been a theory that reconciles both the observations and expectations of quantum mechanics (which is, so far as we are able to observe, correct) and the theory of relativity (which is, so far as we're able to observe, correct). They're both right in their own way but on a fundamental point they both can't work. It's really quite interesting :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 02:03:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
Relativity says gravity isn't caused by mass, but by some function that combines mass, momentum, and a bunch of other stuff. A lot of that is applicable only near light-speeds (which exist in the real universe, unlike my inaccurate generalization above, but are difficult to see/measure/comprehend). As Einstein himself noted, though, the theory he was proposing was incomplete, and no one has satisfactorily completed it, insofar as I know. Not for lack of trying...
Well, the general theory of relativity I think can fairly be described as a theory of gravity. It does explain why gravity exists, and does so better than pretty much any other existing theory, such as classical Newtonian mechanics. It describes gravity as being the consequence of the curvature of space around massive objects. It isn't really in conflict siwht special relativity, I don't think - the kicker is that there has yet to be a general theory that unifys general relativity with quantum mechanics.
But I don't think that it is accurate to say we don't have a theory about what gravity is - we certainly do, and it seems to be pretty good. It may not be complete, but then, very few theories (even generally accepted ones, like ToE) are complete.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2009, 02:14:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
Since quantum mechanics has been begun to be understand we've realised there's a problem with Einstein's theory of relativity which is that it just doesn't work at the level of atoms and so on.
Since then the holy grail (stay away Tim :P) of physics has been a theory that reconciles both the observations and expectations of quantum mechanics (which is, so far as we are able to observe, correct) and the theory of relativity (which is, so far as we're able to observe, correct). They're both right in their own way but on a fundamental point they both can't work. It's really quite interesting :mellow:
I am not sure that they really "both can't work" so much as there is a gap between them that still needs to be filled - that final piece of the puzzle that will unite them.
But in general, to grumblers point, I do think it is fair to say that there is a generally accepted "theory of gravity" it is in fact, Einsteins THeory of General Relativity..
But I ahve to admit my knowledge is pretty amateur, of course....I
think I understand the 50,000ft. overview of it, but will get quickly lost once anyone with physics training beyond undergrad 200 level courses starts talking.
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 02:17:50 AM
But I ahve to admit my knowledge is pretty amateur, of course....I think I understand the 50,000ft. overview of it, but will get quickly lost once anyone with physics training beyond undergrad 200 level courses starts talking.
Exactly the same. All I know is from what I read in Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe' and talked about with my old uni-housemate who did physics (and is currently doing theoretical physics the Masters - last week she had a a 2.5 hour lecture on one equation :blink:) but my understanding is hazy and from memory.
Edit: Though from a distance I find it fascinating.
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
We know the elementary particle of light is a photon. We think the elementary particle of gravity is a graviton. We can detect the former, but thus far it's proven impossible to detect the latter.
Quote from: Fate on December 20, 2009, 02:29:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2009, 01:52:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?
I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...
We know the elementary particle of light is a photon. We think the elementary particle of gravity is a graviton. We can detect the former, but thus far it's proven impossible to detect the latter.
Obsess much? You sure like your gravitons.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 01:02:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2009, 09:01:45 PM
Irrelevant. We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.
Actually, no. We don't have a single practical (i.e. applies in the universe that exists) gravity theory of which I am aware. Laws, yes. Theories, no.
Ditto for climate. Lots of observations and "laws" but no real theories.
We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.
Well, there are several theories, such as loop quantum gravity or string theory, and general relativity works quite well at anything but the smallest levels. However, the key difference between gravity and climate is that we have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity, to the point that it's effects can be accurately predicted in virtually any likely situation. That just isn't true of the climate.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 05:54:33 AM
Obsess much? You sure like your gravitons.
No, not much.
Getting into whether a theory completely describes a phenomenon is a rabbit hole I don't plan to go down. I think the major difference between the current theory of gravity and climate theory is the predictive ability of each. gravitational theory can predict the effects of gravity to many decimal places, it is one of the more accurately tested scientific theories in existence. Climate theory is still in its infancy, trying to handle the extreme difficulty of a moving, complicated system with a huge number of inputs, feedback loops and outputs. It can't create models that have much predictive power except in the vaguest of terms.
This doesn't make me think that the climate scientists are trying to pull one over on us. Rather, there's a few pieces that point to this being a potentially dangerous situation. One is that glaciers, permafrost and polar ice have been melting at rates and in areas unseen for hundreds and thousands of years. Clearly something is currently going on that is changing the environment in these regions. Second, looking at the records it is clear that radical environmental change can occur over a relatively short period (tens of years) and this change is often associated with sudden glacial creation/destruction. The big question is to what extent the ice changes are symptom or cause of those reversals.
Until we have a better idea of what is going on it makes sense to at least try to limit our impact on the environment. Unfortunately the politicization that comes with that effort has only made it more difficult to figure out what is going on with more garbage science being thrown into the mix from all sides.
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 07:58:45 AM
However, the key difference between gravity and climate is that we have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity, to the point that it's effects can be accurately predicted in virtually any likely situation. That just isn't true of the climate.
Agree with this. My point is just that: the fact that theory is weak does not preclude acting on what we know about practical effects, but the fact that the theory is weak also means that we don't have good predictions for the consequences of specific actions. Skepticism about a given course of action is therefor much more intellectually justified than skepticism about evolution, which we have seen happen and about which our theories are much more complete.
People who complain about the skeptics (and even want to deny them the acknowledgment of that title) seem to forget that scientific progress is propelled by the honest skeptics. The honesty of skeptics should be dealt with on an individual basis, because disagreement /= dishonesty.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2009, 09:01:34 AM
People who complain about the skeptics (and even want to deny them the acknowledgment of that title) seem to forget that scientific progress is propelled by the honest skeptics. The honesty of skeptics should be dealt with on an individual basis, because disagreement /= dishonesty.
I've no problem with the honest sceptics and the debate within the scientific community. There's no doubt that there's space for that or that that is scepticism. What I object to is the title of sceptic being conferred upon people - especially political figures - who are doubting the basic science itself the stuff that almost everyone agrees with. For example the author of DS's op-ed agrees with the basic science, I believe Bjorn Lomkqvist (sp?) does too. They're a world away from people who deny the existence of a greenhouse effect despite the fact that such an effect has, I believe, been proven - it is a theory that works and I think objection to it does not come from a scientific basis but a political one.
You're right, of course, that we don't have a unified theory of climate because we don't know how much different influences matter and so on and we're still discovering that. But the basic science is known. We know that the sun has an effect on climate and on cloud formation; we don't know how much. We know that the greenhouse effect exists; we don't know how much of an effect it has overall. And so on.
If anything it's the uncertainty of it that makes me think we should sometimes be dangerously radical. I mean it makes sense that there is a certain point at which the density of cold fresh water causes the gulf stream to stop; we don't know that point but logically it must exist and while the Arctic is melting we have no idea how close we are to that point. That's a scary thought.
Hijacking this thread. Coal field troubles.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_coalfields_flash_point
Quote
Fear of violence grows in mountaintop mining fight
AP
By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer – Sat Dec 19, 9:30 pm ET
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – It was the slap heard 'round the coalfields: Cordelia Ruth Tucker, wearing the fluorescent-striped shirt of a miner, strode past West Virginia state troopers and into a stream of marchers protesting mountaintop removal mining to deliver an audible smack.
The 54-year-old Rock Creek woman isn't talking as she awaits trial on a battery charge. Her neighbor, environmental activist Judy Bonds, says she was on the receiving end of the slap.
And Bonds — like many in a place where labor disputes have a violent history — fears more blows will follow as the fight escalates over mountaintop removal, the uniquely Appalachian form of strip mining that involves blowing tops off mountains and dumping the rubble in valleys.
For nearly a decade, environmentalists and the mining industry battled in courtrooms and the Capitol. Arrests were unheard of.
This year, as mountaintop removal has drawn more scrutiny from regulators, policy makers and the public, the activists' strategy changed.
There have been nearly 100 arrests in 20 protests, most involving trespassing. Led by a new group called Climate Ground Zero, the activists have chained themselves to giant dump trucks, scaled 80-foot trees to stop blasting and paddled into a 9 million-gallon sludge pond. They've blocked roads, hung banners and staged sit-ins.
Virginia-based Massey Energy claims a single 3 1/2-hour occupation at Progress Coal Co. in Twilight cost the company $300,000. Two environmentalists pleaded no contest to battery after that incident for trying to push past a miner and climb a 20-story, earth-moving crane.
Mountaintop removal foes say the industry and its allies are stoking fear and anger among miners and their friends by accusing environmentalists, Congress and the Obama administration of trying to kill coal through regulation and permitting.
Massey equates anti-coal with anti-American. Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy blames the planned layoffs of 482 miners on a lawsuit by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Both sides are fighting for a way of life. The miners see the mountains as their livelihood. The environmentalists see them as divine and irreplaceable creations.
Since that slap in June, conflict has manifested itself mainly in harsh words and shows of force: Shout-downs by hundreds of miners at an Army Corps of Engineers hearing; a bare-bellied miner's profane, throat-slitting gesture at a picnic for environmentalists on Kayford Mountain; a curse-laden online tirade in which someone using the screen name "Superhippieslayer" warns, "Look out violence is coming your way. There is a group ready as we speak to eliminate the threat."
The bitter feelings bubble up in comments posted on YouTube video links to incidents like the June 23 protest march where Bonds was slapped. Hundreds of comments were posted after she spoke at a Dec. 7 rally in Charleston, many laced with profanities.
It's to the point where Bonds, a diminutive 57-year-old, has installed home-security cameras, carries a handgun and checks her car for dangling bomb wires.
"I feel a sense of dread," she said. "You're taking your life in your hands if they know who you are."
Lorelei Scarbro, an activist with Coal River Mountain Watch, said the industry provokes the miners as it demonizes the environmentalists.
"It's not the working man that's the problem here," Scarbro said. "It's the industry and the way they continue to use and exploit people on both sides of the issue, whether it's the working man trying to take care of his family or the environmentalist trying to take care of us all."
Environmentalists use words like "corrupt," "greedy" and "thugs" to describe the pro-coal establishment. Industry counters with words like "hippies," "extremists" and "terrorists."
The West Virginia Coal Association dismisses much of the inflammatory language as harmless rhetoric, to be expected when jobs are on the line.
"We absolutely don't condone people who use threats, intimidation and general thuggism," said senior vice president Chris Hamilton. However, "from our standpoint, it's more difficult to engage in constructive discussion with someone who has as their primary objective to shut the industry down."
Neither side is backing down.
"People are not going to just roll over and let their livelihood be regulated out of business," said Beckley coal truck supplier Carl Hubbard, who bemoaned "limp-wristed greeniacs" in a recent newspaper column. "God put that coal here for us to mine, in my view."
There have been pleas to tone things down.
In July, after the South Charleston Museum board of directors canceled the premiere of the film "Coal Country" over unspecified security concerns, the West Virginia Council of Churches begged both sides to respect the rights of lawful assembly and free speech.
Months later, executive director Dennis Sparks is still waiting: "There's not a day goes by that we don't lift it up in prayer."
Politicians and power brokers have generally responded by inciting or standing indifferent. Take state Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin: "The Lord didn't create many things without a purpose. But mosquitoes and the EPA come close, I think."
U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd recently became an important exception, rebuking the industry.
"The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal," he said. "Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counterproductive."
Elsewhere, rhetoric might be dismissed as just that, but the coalfields have a bloody history.
In 1920, a shootout between unionizing miners and coal company security guards left 12 men dead on the streets of Matewan, W.Va. The 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, an armed union uprising, eventually required the intervention of federal troops. During a union strike in the 1980s, car windows were smashed and shots were fired.
"But this is different," said William Kovarik, an associate professor at Radford University in Virginia who studies and teaches the history of environmental movements worldwide.
Now the conflict is between miners and people within their own communities.
"Union and nonunion workers are being told by management that their livelihoods are at great risk from out-of-state environmentalists," Kovarik said. "Management is going out of its way to equate them with terrorists, when in reality, they are their own neighbors, grandparents, retired coal miners and college students."
And dehumanizing your opponent, Kovarik said, can open the door to real violence.
Activist Chuck Nelson, a former underground miner from Glen Daniel, said the longer surface miners face uncertainty, the more the danger grows: The federal government must act soon, one way or the other.
And if the EPA comes down on the environmentalists' side?
"Well," Nelson said, "there's a possibility it might not be safe to live in the Coal River Valley."
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2009, 09:37:05 AM
If anything it's the uncertainty of it that makes me think we should sometimes be dangerously radical.
That's the worst attitude one can take when the functioning of a system is so uncertain. Radical actions will likely lead to radical changes, but with such a chaotic system seemingly beneficial changes may end up being worse than allowing the current path of the system to continue.
Part of my issue with how the climate change debate has transformed in the popular sense is that it has become this argument over a single, binary condition: is the average temperature of the Earth increasing, and if so, how are humans causing or accelerating it. This is a dangerously simplistic focus for a system we know so little about. There are many smaller-scale, and better understood, changes going on regionally or locally. These changes may or may not matter outside of the area they directly impact. Regardless of their global impact, though, they are a serious problem and should be rectified. While fixing these problems may not affect the global problem, whatever that problem actually is, those actions will have known benefits to the local environments. We should be focusing on those problems before taking "dangerously radical" actions like forcing a significant drop in the carbon outputs of major economies.
QuoteI mean it makes sense that there is a certain point at which the density of cold fresh water causes the gulf stream to stop; we don't know that point but logically it must exist and while the Arctic is melting we have no idea how close we are to that point.
Why? Do we really understand the Gulf Stream well enough to say what will happen? I'm familiar with the theory that declining salinity in the Arctic could slow or even shut down the Gulf Stream, and from what I've read it appears to be a solid theory, In no way does this mean such a point must logically exist.
I highlight this point because it illustrates a concern I expressed earlier, that we are making decisions based on details of a system we don't understand very well. There are other macro cycles in the system that, like the Gulf Stream, are very well observed and understood as they exist, but not in how they may change and what might affect them. Taking our theories on how these cycles may be perturbed and assuming only the details may be off (decreasing salinity in the Arctic will stop the Gulf Stream; its just a question of how much) is potentially dangerous.
Quote from: vonmoltke on December 22, 2009, 11:24:09 AM
I highlight this point because it illustrates a concern I expressed earlier, that we are making decisions based on details of a system we don't understand very well. There are other macro cycles in the system that, like the Gulf Stream, are very well observed and understood as they exist, but not in how they may change and what might affect them. Taking our theories on how these cycles may be perturbed and assuming only the details may be off (decreasing salinity in the Arctic will stop the Gulf Stream; its just a question of how much) is potentially dangerous.
What's the danger? And what decisions have we made off of this?
Let's be clear the danger of radical environmental policies is a few years of slow economic growth and the concordant social costs - which isn't to be sniffed at but isn't an abyss. The EU's reduced emissions a small amount and now the world's promised to consider trying terribly hard to cut emissions generally. I can't think of many actual decisions that have been taken on this subject - certainly at an international level - as opposed to, tragically, lots more hot air.
QuoteWhile fixing these problems may not affect the global problem, whatever that problem actually is, those actions will have known benefits to the local environments. We should be focusing on those problems before taking "dangerously radical" actions like forcing a significant drop in the carbon outputs of major economies.
What do you mean by the local environments?
QuoteBy VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer
Who wrote the article?
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 06:05:32 AM
Palin is not merely noise. She's the face of America's right wing. If you want to look for fellow science denialists allies across the sea, there is no better standard bearer. :lol:
Uh - she's the face of the moronic right wing. Which isn't the majority of the right - perhaps 1/4 of the sum total.
The rest are resigned to her and her ilk, or are casting about for somebody less obnoxious and silly.
A new intern showed up - a quasi-observant Catholic Georgetown grad - and we have political discussions on
occasion. Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left. There's no real critical thought as to the
real qualities, just that the individual serves as a cipher for a kaleidescope of viewpoints. I find this to ring true, although it disturbs me none the less.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2009, 03:12:16 PM
QuoteBy VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer
Who wrote the article?
Joe Dirt.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 22, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left.
I can understand why people would put their faith in Obama. He does have the skill to inspire through his oratory. I can't understand why Palin might have the same effect after all the mis-steps she has taken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2009, 05:37:14 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 22, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left.
I can understand why people would put their faith in Obama. He does have the skill to inspire through his oratory. I can't understand why Palin might have the same effect after all the mis-steps she has taken.
Sympathy. If she cries on Oprah, she'll be our next President.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 22, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 06:05:32 AM
Palin is not merely noise. She's the face of America's right wing. If you want to look for fellow science denialists allies across the sea, there is no better standard bearer. :lol:
Uh - she's the face of the moronic right wing. Which isn't the majority of the right - perhaps 1/4 of the sum total.
The rest are resigned to her and her ilk, or are casting about for somebody less obnoxious and silly.
Who's the face of a majority/plurality of the right wing if not Palin? We have such a cast of brilliant characters to choose from... Palin, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh oh my!
Speaking of the Climate I found this article on the Guardian quite interesting. What this journalist's reputation Sheilbh, credible or not?
As for his comments on the Chinese dumping multilateralism to the curb when it becomes inconvenient to them, surprise, surprise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
Quote
Copenhagen climate conference
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2009, 05:37:14 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 22, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left.
I can understand why people would put their faith in Obama. He does have the skill to inspire through his oratory. I can't understand why Palin might have the same effect after all the mis-steps she has taken.
Obama is losing ground fast, at historically fast rates for a first year President. Heh, I don't like Palin but at this point I'd favor her, or Carter (egads) or Bush W over this band of tramps, miscreants, thieves, liars and totally assinine spenders in the White HOuse and especially Congress! ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 22, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
What's the danger? And what decisions have we made off of this?
Let's be clear the danger of radical environmental policies is a few years of slow economic growth and the concordant social costs - which isn't to be sniffed at but isn't an abyss. The EU's reduced emissions a small amount and now the world's promised to consider trying terribly hard to cut emissions generally. I can't think of many actual decisions that have been taken on this subject - certainly at an international level - as opposed to, tragically, lots more hot air.
No major decisions have been made yet, fortunately, based on anything like this, but not for lack of trying. I'm worried about the time when the radicals do get their way, which doesn't seem to be too long from now.
Also, I think you underestimate what the economic and social impacts of some of these policies could be. Not anywhere near a complete collapse, like the opposite group of radicals would have you believe, but still a potentially unbearable cost for policies that could prove to be useless.
Furthermore, the dangers I'm talking about are also relative to the climate system itself. Not knowing how the system reacts to various stimuli could result in humanity doing something else that's just as harmful to the current state of the system. What effects do wind, solar, geothermal, and other power sources have on the energy balance in the system? What trace materials will be needed for alternative technologies that aren't needed now, and how will the production and use of those affect the system?
Quote
What do you mean by the local environments?
I'm thinking of, for instance, the issues with desertification as around Beijing, the terrible water pollution issues in places like India and Thailand, reduction in wetland area like in south Florida, air quality in Texas and LA, environmental issues that have significant local impacts but get little attention outside of the regions unless they can be linked to the magic "C" word.
By the way, I'm going to be on the road as of tomorrow morning (CST), so it will take me a couple days to reply.
Quote from: KRonn on December 22, 2009, 09:31:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 22, 2009, 05:37:14 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 22, 2009, 03:25:26 PM
Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left.
I can understand why people would put their faith in Obama. He does have the skill to inspire through his oratory. I can't understand why Palin might have the same effect after all the mis-steps she has taken.
Obama is losing ground fast, at historically fast rates for a first year President. Heh, I don't like Palin but at this point I'd favor her, or Carter (egads) or Bush W over this band of tramps, miscreants, thieves, liars and totally assinine spenders in the White HOuse and especially Congress! ;)
Yeah. Palin would be so much better. :lmfao:
Quote from: KRonn on December 22, 2009, 09:31:55 PM
Obama is losing ground fast, at historically fast rates for a first year President.
We don't have a year yet. For Presidential approval ratings up to this point there have been lower numbers (Clinton) and faster declines (Reagan)
QuoteWhat this journalist's reputation Sheilbh, credible or not?
Not a clue I'm afraid. Though Barosso more or less blamed China. When asked why there wasn't a deal he said 'because China doesn't like numbers'.
QuoteI'm thinking of, for instance, the issues with desertification as around Beijing, the terrible water pollution issues in places like India and Thailand, reduction in wetland area like in south Florida, air quality in Texas and LA, environmental issues that have significant local impacts but get little attention outside of the regions unless they can be linked to the magic "C" word.
Oh I'm all for that sort of stuff - and I think that it would surely all be linked to climate. I think further up I mentioned desertification and deforestation as two things we could act on reasonably quickly. But I entirely support this sort of conservation effort. It's not a huge issue in the UK - or Europe - I think because we don't have many issues like that.
QuoteWhat effects do wind, solar, geothermal, and other power sources have on the energy balance in the system? What trace materials will be needed for alternative technologies that aren't needed now, and how will the production and use of those affect the system?
These are all fair questions. Though to be honest ones I'm in no position to answer. I've a friend who's just finishing his Masters but has a job lined up for a company that's trying to make solar panel environmentally friendly (at the moment it takes so much carbon to make the panels that you need 2 years before they reach carbon neutrality) and I think the company has something to do with algae research. To be quite honest you'd need someone with a far more scientific base and understanding to talk about this.
QuoteAlso, I think you underestimate what the economic and social impacts of some of these policies could be. Not anywhere near a complete collapse, like the opposite group of radicals would have you believe, but still a potentially unbearable cost for policies that could prove to be useless.
They could prove to be useless but I think the policies are generally good in themselves. Policies like the retrofitting of commercial and personal buildings, the building of new nuclear sites and renewable energy sites, the encouragement of public transport, investment in research and investment in providing support for businesses and individuals to invest in their own sort of mini-supply. All of that costs money initially but in the long-term saves significant amounts - I think if we can convince people to do stuff because of that we'll have a better chance. But also I think reducing our reliance on oil and gas are just good things that should be encouraged from a perspective of avoiding Russian/Saudi links as much as an environmental one.
That's part of the reason I think it seems like a no-brainer. It's a kill two birds with one stone situation.
from CNN:
QuoteA conversation with an extraordinary man about an important topic: the former scientific brain of Microsoft, Nathan Myhrvold, offers a new approach to solving global warming.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490)
QuoteThe academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.
The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
More...MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of 'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be.
'There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.'
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no 'statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled 'until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0faWTotnw
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-
Daily Mail? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:46:45 AM
Daily Mail? :lol:
:lol:
Well they could not quote the guy saying "all we were saying was bullcrap" unless he really did so.
Here is a summary of recent climategate scandals from the OC Register:
QuoteFrom the Register's Opinion Page: What to say to a global warming advocate
By MARK LANDSBAUM
Article Videos Data It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate– Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate– The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate– Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.
My motto is :
Love the Environment, loathe the environmentalist.
What about Troopergate?
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 02:46:45 AM
Daily Mail? :lol:
I'm tool lazy to digg it, but there's the full text on BBC's site, a question&answer wich put things in context.
Could somebody please invent another scandal ending other than -GATE; we're starting to sound incredibly repetitive and stupid as a race.