So the short version of why this is so important... About 85% of the global warming that has been reported since 1940 is man made. Well, man made in that certain men have created it from whole cloth.
Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C Total Reported Warming: 0.6C
Rocket, If I understand you, the people who lied to make millions of pounds tell us that they are good guys, and it's either the Russians, the Saudi's, the oil companies, Dr Strangelove, or Blake, that hacked their computer & revealed that they have been lying to us the whole time, so now we should believe them & not the stuff they actually wrote for years?
I don't know about your sense of self preservation, but If I worked at the CRU & wanted to post the e-mails, data, & source code that WAS leaked, I sure wouldn't do it on the Anglia net. I'd do what any self respecting porn company/intel agent/hacker student would do, & use the Russian servers to avoid prosecution.
I actually hear some weasel use the b.s. line that "so what if some data was faked? if there is a 50% chance that they are right, even a 40%, 20%, 10% chance that they are right...WE MUST ACT NOW!!!"
Well, he's a lier. Lets see, most criminals are liers. Some criminals are rape murderers. SO........ if there is a 10% chance that he, a lier, is a rape murderer.... we must act NOW & KILL HIM BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL!!!!!!!!!
Same lack of logic. total BS.
Rocket. Yes, mankind has affected the planet. Yes, pollution since the industrial revolution has been major. BUT. The trend in world wide temperatures has been cooling for a decade.
I am far more concerned with a 5 deg. temp drop that a 1 degree rise. history shows that 4 deg warmer is groovy. 5 deg cooler kills a few billion people with starvation & war, as the northern people have to move south to survive.
You "fix global warming" when the problem is really global cooling ( a far, far, more likely situation, and one that has in the past & WILL in the future repeat ) we are screwed.
We'd better get the science RIGHT, before we have a panic reaction.
Rich societies, like the U.S. & England, clean up their messes, and we have to keep doing so. Poor countries have major pollution problems & they are not getting cleaned up. China & Russia, former & current Communist dictatorships, are the worst of all.
We had 3 mile island. We made a small mess and cleaned it up.
They had Chernoble. They still haven't cleaned it up. Heck, the Russians killed a SEA!
Remember. Cooling for ten years. They lied to you about that. Repeatedly. Why are you listening to THEM?
"If global warming is such a conspiracy, who stands to benefit?"
China and India will also benefit. They will talk about GW and even pay lip service to it in Copenhagen and beyond but will not do anything substantive because it will hobble their growing economies. The goal is to to get the United States to weaken itself politically, economically, and militarily.
Has anyone considered the economic upside of energy conservation and a switch to sustainable energy sources. Consider the possibility that global warming is indeed untrue, would it ultimately not be better for the US to shed itself of the need for reliance on foreign energy sources. It would radically alter our policy on middle eastern countries. We could be the world leaders in sustainable sources including solar and wind technologies. We could export these technologies to the entire planet and in the process provide third world countries with cheap and easily accessible electricity.
I enjoy my gas burning buell as much as anyone, and I am certainly not saying that fossil fuels will be eliminated all together, but I think as wise energy policy goes it makes no sense to be beholden to dictatorial third world countries that we only really care about because of their natural resources. Global warming or no, does it not make sense to work towards a clean, renewable source of energy, because whether we like it or not, the oil will eventually run out. I am fully aware that there are "alternate" theories about the creation of oil from the earth's mantle, but as far as the most common understanding of it's creation goes, it is the result of of plant degradation and millions of years.
You can argue that there may or may not be a crisis of global warming or a big conspiracy, but in reality, most people are just to reticent to change and would rather not have to face the fact that have to change their behavior and, perish the thought, actually have to do something sustainable or recyclable. I am by no means a tree hugger, but the amount of waste that we all use is atrocious, especially in this country. What honestly is wrong with changing our energy policy to one that accentuates our domestic resources and reduces our reliance on polluting sources of energy regardless of whether the temperatures is going up or down?
America owns about 1/4th of the worlds recoverable coal reserves. Our coal is used to generate the vast majority of our electricity. We now do so cleanly. How is pissing all that wealth down the drain in favor of... what, I dunno... going to benefit us?
We also have a large supply of natural gas. It too is a hydrocarbon that when burned whether in vehicles or power-plants produces CO2. How is pissing all that wealth down the drain in favor of... what, I dunno... going to benefit us?
We also have a large supply of oil, much of it as yet untapped. How is pissing all that wealth down the drain in favor of... what, I dunno... going to benefit us?
So to your excellent question then, I gotta raise another. What is going to replace all our coal, natural gas, and oil and the associated industries that is going to so "stimulate" our economy so as to more than counteract pissing away all our natural resource wealth?
I am ALL for reducing our dependence on foreign energy, especially from the islamists. I am not for throwing away untold reserves of energy wealth over a scam.
If the average American home ends up having to shell out an additional $3000K per year to cover increased energy costs, how is that going to help the average American, let alone the poor schmucks just trying to avoid freezing to death.
Given that man-made global warming is a farce, then the best way to manage our energy policy if we see eliminating imports as a primary goal is to...
1. Allow development of ALL of America's oil reserves. 2. Allow construction of new refineries. 3. Incentivise development of alternate vehicle fuels, like coal gasification, ethanol, biodiesel, liquid natural gas, etc. 4. Electric cars and solar power. 5. Develop mass transit and prohibit or financially penalize private automobile traffic within major metro areas.
That #5 may sound off the wall coming from a libertarian minded Texan, but it is LONG overdue. Put the folks to work on some KILLER mass transit systems all over the nation.
Why the heck anyone wants to live way out in a suburb to where they have to drive more than a half hour to work is nuts to me. Live where you work.
I'd not be opposed to increased gasoline tax either to help incentivize alternate fuels.
The hard truth though is that right now, there is still NOTHING economically competitive with good old petroleum fuels.
That won't remain the case as we saw just last year with oil up over $140/bbl. If it can stay up around $70/bbl, the alternate fuels may become viable.
The Fiction Of Climate Science Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM ET
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."
Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."
OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.
In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.
Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.
Sorry, I noticed.
It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.
Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.
His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.
The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.
That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.
While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.
Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.
Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.
Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."
To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?
I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.
Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.
Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.
I'm not sure that's at all correct though. I don't imagine the changes are happening over night so they may well have been happening since the 70's or earlier. And where are the armadillos now. Still south of Nebraska? Then there's that whole tree ring stuff. I saw somewhere recently that tree rings might not be the hard drive of the past we previously thought and the information garnered from within is not accurate or as relevant as we believed.
I'm not in support of either side. I just don't see that the email fiasco should bring down the findings of other reputable sources. And they do exists independent of Anglia University, and independent of funding that feathers nests.
just why, exactly, is global warming (if it existed) bad? Warmer weather equals more growing areas. More growing areas equals more plants which equals more oxygen.
Sean, the product of Anglie U. has been the poster for the man-made, catastrophic global warming alarmists. Their now proven bogus "hockey stick" plot was on the cover of the UN climate change report. It was THE major point that Al Gore used to hammer their climate hysteria into the main stream. A picture is worth a thousand words and that picture has been shown to be a complete lie.
I agree on the tree ring data. The same is true for ice core data, WAY too much uncertainty in any of it. Sean, that is the exact data that the alarmists are using to push their view.
Mars is warming, how is that caused by man?
The common sense view is not that, hey it seems like it's been warmer lately, we should turn our civilization on its head to counter it.
The common sense view is that climate is ALWAYS in a state of flux, never remaining constant. In the distant past it's been a lot warmer and a lot colder than in recent history. Man wasn't the cause.
We aren't the governing cause now.
And like Joe states, the alarmism, even if man-made global warming were not a lie, is unsupportable. Colder is bad, no argument. Warmer appears from historic information (Medeval warm period) to be a very positive change.
We now just learned that all the hysteria earlier this year about the polar ice being catastrophically diminished was also false, a "mistake" in factoring satellite sensor readings. Funny how ALL the mistakes tend towards supporting the alarmist agenda. It just really tickles ya, don't it? The reports earlier this year declaring that polar bears were catastrophically losing their sea ice hunting habitat somehow missed a half MILLION square kilometers of sea ice, a "mistake" the size of California, DOUBLE the entire size of all of Great Britain, including N. Ireland! Ooops!
Are you #@$%ing kidding me!!!???
Here's a good clue-in to reality versus fictional hysterics/lies, since 1970, the polar bear population on Earth has increased five fold, from 5 thousand to 25 thousand.
Yet our government has just seen fit to designate the polar bear an "endangered species". That give the EPA (environmental protection agency) a sweeping power over anything related to polar bears or their habitat.
Our government has also just declared that CO2 is a threat to mankind. Again, this gives sweeping power to our EPA over anything related to CO2.
I agree that other sources of scientific information should not be discounted due to the fraud of others. But if they at all relied upon or referenced the lies or the liars, then it's back to square one.
It's not just the lies and fraud, the liars were also scheming to silence scientists critical of catastrophic AGW (anthropogenic global warming aka man-made global warming).
Then there's that whole tree ring stuff. I saw somewhere recently that tree rings might not be the hard drive of the past we previously thought and the information garnered from within is not accurate or as relevant as we believed.
As Blake stated these tree ring proxies were the corner stone that suddenly allowed the alarmists to claim that the current temperatures are unprecedented. The emails simply make it obvious that the alarmists never really bought into this themselves. It sounds like you will accept almost anything if an authority figure that you approve of simply says it's for your own good. That's pretty scary!
just why, exactly, is global warming (if it existed) bad? Warmer weather equals more growing areas. More growing areas equals more plants which equals more oxygen.
It would seem that there is no reason to believe that warming is a bad thing, at least based on history. Somehow to the Malthusian mind any change up or down will bring us to the end of civilization. It really is a bizarre mindset when you consider that climate always changes. The thing that I find really bizarre though is that we are on the tail end of the current interglacial period. We KNOW that ice will cover huge portions of the world again in the not too distant future. This will be a real test for the survival for the masses. The areas that provide our food will not be inhabitable, much less usable to produce food. It is with this absolute knowledge that we worry about a slight warming trend.
Haven't read all of this yet, and won't have time to until later, but it doesn't look good...
quote:
“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
"...the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
"The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said".
News at 10 here on ITV carried out their own investigations, camping out on the ice, and it has diminished considerably. Didn't I see somewhere there's talk of the Northwest Passage being opened to commercial shipping where it won't take ice breakers to get through as the passage will be open and free from pack ice. That's something. So how do we excuse the ice pack melting? Is this part of an age old pattern?
The first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record.
New figures released today in Copenhagen show that — despite 1998 being the warmest individual year — the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Similar results are revealed in the independent analyses made by the United State National Climatic Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
These figures highlight that the world continues to see global temperature rise, most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed.
Separately, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has today revealed that 2009 looks set to become another top-ten warm year according to latest figures, with a provisional warming of 0.44 °C above the long-term average of 14.0 °C.
2009 has been warmer than 2008, owing to the emergence of El Niño conditions in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and is expected to be the fifth-warmest year in the instrumental record that dates back to 1850.
Similar results are revealed in the independent analyses made by the United State National Climatic Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Data from people who sent e-mails to each other conspiring to fake the data to conceal the cooling trend since 1998 is what you now base your rebuttal on?
If I show that the U.N. is, knowingly or not, lying to us about Climate Change, and that the people who lied are conspiring to suppress the decline in temperatures, quoting a U.N. report that there is no decline, is absurd.
Please understand. I support the U.S. military. It ( and England & Australia's ) is the best in the world. Our people are the kindest, most careful military, a force whose job ( since the dawn of time ) is to kill people & break things. I like the fact that these young men & women, volunteers all, stand between my loved ones and I and those who would murder & enslave us. ( as does yours ) BUT there are those who would abuse the power having an Army gives. They have for 14,000 years, used armies to steal land, slaves & resources from others, enslave people, and crush dissent.
I appreciate the Green Revolution of the 70's where companies like Dow made progress in creating & breeding grains that made it possible for the planet to support more than the 2 billion people that was all could possibly be fed just a few short years ago. Literally billions of people alive today would never have been born or would have died shortly after birth, if not for that tireless work to make agriculture more productive. ( for profit & altruism....mostly profit ) BUT. the techniques of genetic manipulation that created super-rice can ( and have in the Soviet Union ) be used to breed bacteria that can murder entire continents.
I love the fact that concerned citizens saw pollution & wanted the world to be a cleaner, healthier place. Rivers that CAUGHT ON FIRE! are now recreation & fishing streams. Toxic waste is being cleaned up throughout the rich nations of the world. There is a long way to go, but the way is possible. BUT. this perverted branch of the green movement that is the Global Warming movement is a political one from the beginning, and a fraud. It is to make money & take power, and nothing else. Even the so called scientists that are part of it admit that the reduction in CO2 gained by any of their programs will not change the results of their computer models.
So, I support climate research, since an ice age is coming baby.
I support clean energy, but it has to compete or it will fail.
I support alternative fuels, ( though I'm still disbelieving that these frauds spent billions of dollars to make fuel from FOOD!) and would very much like a car that runs on reactor waste, and needs a new fuel cartridge every 5 years.
Ive figured out the conspiracy gang. Its all a plot by the shadow government ie. Bush/Cheney to make us all so poor with little extra to spend that we cannot afford chinese goods and services. This in turn will crush their booming economy all under the guise of cleaning up the environment.
Seems NASA's data may not be any more valid than anyone else's.
I would guess that NASA's (the GISS data set) data is worse than CRU. James Hansen has been cooking the data in a big way. Unlike CRU where the raw data was lost in a shredder the NASA raw data is available from NOAA. This allows comparison between the raw data and the "adjusted" data and /i{every} adjustment they do increases the rate of change. The data is being examined from individual reporting sites and the adjustments appear to have no reason at all (other than exaggerating the rate of change). NASA is failing to respond to FOI requests just as CRU did. They will not provide any details or reasons for the adjustments being done.
There is hope that with the CRU scandal that NASA will be forced to explain themselves. I have my doubts with the current political climate, but things eventually change and meanwhile there is the chance that some of the public may catch wind of what is going on.
I've always found it interesting that NASA is still using data collected from land based thermometers for the official record. The known problems with the data are incredible from sparse coverage to thermometers located over black top, next to air conditioners, next to BBQ grills, etc. All of this can be seen at http://www.surfacestations.org/. Why doesn't NASA start using data from their satellites? They get almost complete coverage of the entire globe in a matter of hours, they don't suffer from siting problems, have less problems with urban heat island effects and don't need constant massaging to make the data presentable. I have a feeling that last one is the deal breaker! That and the fact that it doesn't show the warming that is being claimed. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat ures/
This link shows how the adjustments are being examined as well as hitting on a number of other problems with using thermometer data. This happens to be Australian data being examined, but I can find similar studies for US sites if someone asks. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking- gun-at-darwin-zero/
Posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 01:50 pm:
I don't know who this Zoe Brain other than what she says in her short bio, but she makes a great case that makes it obvious that current temperatures are not anything unusual.
So how do we get from ice core records that show it being warmer in the past to all of the current Malthusian fretting over a small blip in temperature? This is easy enough for any lay person to understand. Isn't it?
There is some news at last that is wholly positive on the climate change front. A UN agency has outlined the extent of measurements needed to assess the impact of climate and the planet and they have assigned a cost to the project.
Slight downer is that no nation will allow the project to proceed as they consider such critical data as too valuable to enemies/economic competitors. Also the instruments required do not exist. Never the less the process has been started, framework to proceed has been generated, the will necessary to carry it out can be found.
My God, we live in stupid times. Does the UN want money to monitor flatulence, too ?
I blame higher education for all of this. Way too many stupid people are graduating from universities with a false sense of self -importance and relevance.
An organization representing the grandest ambitions of climate scientists wants Western nations to spend at least $2.1 billion a year for the next five years — and as much as $60 billion overall during that period — to glean huge troves of still undiscovered climate information from the world's land, air and seas.
And here I thought the science was settled. Now we find out it is going to cost us $60 billion over the next 5 years to gather more data.
Will this data be available for review by those that may not be on board with their agenda? I don't think the UN is bound by any FOIA regulations (not that it seems to matter to those keeping the official climate data anyway). Some how science done by politicians doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Gads. . . you've captured my thoughts in a single sentence.
Well done.
We the majority, roughly 52% of folks, lost confidence in their ability to think and do for themselves and began to look to ill learned and experienced folks to provide for them .. the results are predictable.
>>>And people should never confuse being smart with being educated.
That's absolutely correct.
And no amount of "real world experience" or "school of hard knocks" will make a person well educated.
I . . . and it's only my PERSONAL OPINION. . . like to try to combine both.
I'm proud of all the years I drove trucks, the hours jackhammering rock in the bottoms of deep foundations, ran cranes, climbed poles and drove over the road trucks . . .but when you are sitting there selling yourself (and I'm the first to admit it's not everything" . . it never hurts to have Magna Cum Laude from an Ivy League school in the footnotes.
By the way . . . some of the SMARTEST people I have EVER met were in construction. Perhaps the smartest was Forest Sutton of Ozark, MO who (I found out after working with him for 3 years) could not read or write a single word.
Some of the DUMBEST folks I have ever met have been in the halls of NYU and Columbia.
Any correlation, negative or positive, between "formal schooling" and "smart" is largely lore.
