Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out..
Harry Hope
From ABC News, 11/24/09:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
26 Scientists Say Assessment Gives World Leaders Solid Data for
Climate Summit
By BILL BLAKEMORE
There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than
recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by
26 scientists from eight countries.
Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive
ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of
human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also
examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the
climate change.
"Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case
projections" made three years ago by the world's scientists, the new
Copenhagen Diagnosis said. http://copenhagendiagnosis.com/
Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines
have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see
here. http://copenhagendiagnosis.com/
The scientists also calculate that the world's emissions of
heat-trapping gases must peak in less than 10 years and then dive
quickly to nearly zero, if warming of more than another 2 degrees
Fahrenheit above the current annual global temperature is to be
prevented after 2050.
...................................................................................................................
This is the first comprehensive update of leading peer-reviewed
climate science in the three years since the last report of the
intentionally thorough and slow-paced Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change was finalized.
That report is now widely recognized to be out of date in important
ways.
This is because over the past three years, hundreds of new scientific
field accounts of global warming's impacts, as well as improved
peer-reviewed analyses of global warming itself in both the deep past
and the very near future, have depicted earth's atmosphere as far more
"sensitive" to the invisible CO2, methane and other human-sourced
greenhouse gases than had been hoped.
"Mother nature puts a limit on how long you can dither and
procrastinate," climatologist Richard Somerville, one of the study's
authors, told ABC News.
'Abrupt or Irreversible Change' If It's 'Business as Usual'
"We found that several vulnerable elements in Earth's climate system
-- like the Amazon and other big rain forests, like the great ice
sheets that have so much sea level locked up in their ice -- could be
pushed toward abrupt or irreversible change if we go on toward 2100
with our business-as-usual increase in emissions of greenhouse gases,"
he said.
Global Warming Report Out in Time for Copenhagen Summit
Because the next IPCC report is not due before 2013, there had been a
growing concern among many of the world's climate scientists that an
update of the latest solid data would be needed, he said, if
negotiations by the 192 nations gathering at the Copenhagen climate
summit, scheduled for Dec. 7-18, were to be based on reality.
By phone from his base at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in
California, Somerville told ABC News that the 26 authors of the survey
all donated their time and expertise.
"The money we needed for basic transportation to get us to and from
our big global review session in Copenhagen in March and for basic
communication expenses turned up from the Live Earth philanthropy,"
Somerville said.
Live Earth, founded by producer Kevin Wall, in partnership with former
Vice President Al Gore, is a for-profit company that uses concerts,
media and other events to encourage awareness worldwide about
environmental issues.
"They've had no influence or involvement of any kind with the report
itself," he said.
"That is entirely under the control of the 26 authors from the eight
countries, all widely respected -- and many of them are lead authors
of IPCC studies. They're known quantities in the peer-reviewed science
world."
Though this report is not "officially" from the IPCC, which makes no
provisions for comprehensive mid-term reports halfway through its
five- or six-year reporting cycle, Somerville said he and his fellow
authors expect that it will be accepted by their peers in climate
research around the world.
"This report is firmly based on more than 200 recent peer-reviewed
papers clearly listed in the report," he said.
The authors said they were aiming not only at policy makers, but also
at the general public.
Common misconceptions about global warming are dealt with in separate
side-bar boxes, explaining why, for example, the human-induced warming
has not slowed or paused, contrary to some recent headlines.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/global-warming-common-misconceptions/story?id=9159877
The authors also give a relatively reassuring assessment about the
chances of an uncontrollable "runaway" global temperature rise in the
near future.
Sea Level, Ice, Acidification, Emission -- New Science
Their findings include:
--- Sea Level Rise this century is likely to be "at least twice that
projected" three years ago, with enormous humanitarian and economic
impacts.
It could well be around three feet before the year 2100, says the
report.
Just a fraction of that increase in sea level could displace many
millions of people and greatly increase vulnerability to storms.
A sea-level rise of 6 � feet is now considered by the scientists to be
a reasonable "upper bound" of estimates -- a distinct possibility.
Global Warming Report: Ice Sheets, Glaciers Melting Faster
Than Predicted
---All ice types, including massive ice sheets, mountain glaciers and
Arctic sea ice (frozen sea-surface), are for the most part melting far
faster than predicted three years ago.
---Greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming are surging,
with global emissions from burning fossil fuels now 40 percent higher
than in 1990 and climbing.
Scientists are at constant pains to point out that recent (or any)
slight and brief emissions drops in a few countries cause no reduction
of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that set the
global temperature thermostat.
This is because CO2 emissions stay in the air for hundreds of years.
Somerville and other scientists say they frequently have to make sure
people they talk to understand the difference between "emissions" --
the amount of additional heat-trapping gas humanity puts in the
atmosphere per year, and "concentrations" -- the amount of those gases
that has piled up in the atmosphere and goes on hanging there for a
long time.
Concentrations, which are measured in parts per million, have been
rising steadily since the beginning of the industrial age some two
centuries ago.
Devilish Coincidence: CO2 Plus H2O Makes Acid
---Ocean acidification has been discovered in the past two years to be
rising into fish-rich shallow waters far faster than oceanographers
expected.
A significant portion of the CO2 emissions that trap heat in the
atmosphere are absorbed by the oceans.
By an apparently devilish coincidence, this same molecule that warms
the atmosphere, CO2, happens, when combined with H20, to form carbonic
acid.
Scientists report the sea is already 30 percent more acidic than it
was at the start of the industrial age.
A wide range of studies and reports of damage to sea life as a result
of this rise in acidity is now coming in from the world's marine
biologists.
Relative Good News: 'No Strong Evidence' Overall Tipping Point
There is one piece of relatively good news from the scientists in this
report, in regard to what it calls "much talk in the popular media"
about the possibility of "runaway" climate change.
It says this would be what's sometimes called "a global tipping
point," in which many amplifying feedbacks around the world produce a
cumulative effect in which Earth enters a "change in state, carried by
its own internal dynamics."
Many amplifying feedbacks are closely monitored by scientists,
including thawing tundra and dying forest releasing massive amounts of
heat-trapping CO2, and the way in which the growing amount of darkened
land absorbs more of the sun's heat, thus further warming the ground
and air.
Such a "change of state" could be uncontrollable, and possibly, some
have worried, so fast that food supplies and human civilization in
general would collapse.
Of this most frightening prospect, the report says clearly:
"There is as yet no strong evidence that the Earth as a whole is near
such a threshold. Instead 'amplified' climate change is a much better
description of what we currently observe and project for the future."
In other words, though painful changes are apparently coming in the
next few decades and before there is a chance of getting Earth's
rising annual global temperature to level off, there is still time,
according to the latest science, to avoid the very worst.
At least, it says, "there is as yet no strong evidence" that such an
overall threshold "is near."
_____________________________________________________
Harry
Sid9
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9l0og59u90op6di6j...@4ax.com...
.
Time has run out.
It is no longer reversible.
Perhaps is can be slowed.
pyjamarama
> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
"Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
claims...
Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
charlatans.
>
> 26 Scientists Say Assessment Gives World Leaders Solid Data for
> Climate Summit
>
> By BILL BLAKEMORE
>
> There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than
> recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by
> 26 scientists from eight countries.
>
> Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive
> ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of
> human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also
> examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the
> climate change.
>
> "Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case
> projections" made three years ago by the world's scientists, the new
> Copenhagen Diagnosis said.http://copenhagendiagnosis.com/
>
> Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines
> have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see
> here.http://copenhagendiagnosis.com/
> has not slowed or paused, contrary to some recent headlines.http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/global-warming-com...
America the Stupid
"pyjamarama" <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4056ee7-1745-4de4...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
"Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
claims...
Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
charlatans.
====================================
The troubling part about Limbaugh is that he spreads ignorant lies with such
conviction, combined with the fact that he's a right wing media star, that
his gullible listeners assume he must know a lot and is speaking truth.
The fact of the matter is that Limbaugh is a liar; he's a high school
graduate who pretends expertise on every subject on which he pontificates,
which is just about evrything; and he is wrong just about all the time.
Rush Limbaugh is simply a con artist, making millions all because he has
gullible listeners who are drawn to Limbaugh's mean-spirited bigotry and
greed like flies to manure. Sad...
P. U. Stinkly
> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>>
>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>
> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
> claims...
>
> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
> charlatans.
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
of losers :)
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>From ABC News, 11/24/09:
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
>Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>
>26 Scientists Say Assessment Gives World Leaders Solid Data for
>Climate Summit
>
>By BILL BLAKEMORE
>
>There's even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than
>recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by
>26 scientists from eight countries.
Why do liberals want to modify the evolution of the planet? They're
always up to their selfish ways, trying to manipulate the climate of
the world for their own needs. On top of that, they're trying to
enlarge the carbon footprint of humanity by giving everyone health
care so they'll live longer.
What a dumbass model, the liberal doctrine. They want more people on
the planet to tell what not to do....
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<stin...@gop.com> puked:
What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
not the result of human activity, but entirely natural? Would you be
for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
survive?
Joe Irvin
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:heh0hq$hfo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Man-made global warming is a fraud.
"For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific
"consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is
over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global
warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is:
the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just
scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of
taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists
have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil
Jones has raked in a total of �13.7 million in grants from the British
government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers.
It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are
lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even
manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to
protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient
facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer
dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the
trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory
is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its
cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly
investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
>
>
Sid9
"Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:6Yednax6Uo7...@comporium.net...
.
It no fraud.
It's real.....and it's too late to stop it...all we can do now is slow
the process.
I do not believe humans will act any differently than other biological
species.
Humans will befoul their own environment.
It's inevitable.
Joe Irvin
What do you base the above assumptions on or is that just your opinion?
>
>
>
Stile4aly
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:27:19 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
>
>
>
>
>
> >pyjamarama wrote:
> >> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> >>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>
> >> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
> >> claims...
>
> >> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
> >> charlatans.
>
>
> >Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>
> >To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
> >of losers :)
>
> What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
> not the result of human activity, but entirely natural? Would you be
> for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
> survive?
Absolutely. Geoengineering is probably a messy business and I worry
that we might do something that would cause more problems than it
fixes, but if it's the best bet then I'm all for it. I vote we start
algae farming right now.
Now, let me flip the question around. If it were to be shown to your
satisfaction that warming was at least in part anthropogenic, would
you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Joe Irvin
"P. U. Stinkly" <stin...@gop.com> wrote in message
news:heh1rg$sn9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The New York Times, not a conservative paper, seems to be paying attention:
"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on
Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the
police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however,
that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the
Internet was authentic.
But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed
that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages
included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate
as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate
accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist
speculated that the timing was not coincidental."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2&em
Mr Gore said there was scientific 'consensus' that there is/was global
warming ... turns out that even the people who said there is/was global
warming didn't believe it but tried to cover up the fact that they couldn't
back up their claim of man made global warming.
lab~rat >:-)
<chine...@yahoo.com> puked:
>In article <6Yednax6Uo7...@comporium.net>,
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>> "For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific
>> "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is
>
>What alternative mechanism are you suggesting for how ancient buried carbon has
>bee injected into the atmosphere?
What loony false science led you to the conclusion that carbon is the
single cause of the supposed global warming (alternating with global
climate change when convenient)?
lab~rat >:-)
<chine...@yahoo.com> puked:
>In article <j34og51795lb58otj...@4ax.com>,
> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>> Why do liberals want to modify the evolution of the planet? They're
>
>What part of digging up carbon that's on the order of a billion years old and
>injecting to the atmosphere was supposed to be part of the planetary evolution?
Clearly it is part of the planet's evolution whether you like it or
not. As well as the hundreds of other conditions altered by organisms
on the earth.
Humans, by their mere existence, release carbon into the atmosphere,
as do all breathing animals. Are you suggesting that we start killing
all the wildlife to satisfy some goofy made up bullshit that the
atmosphere has to be carbon free?
Stile4aly
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:03:38 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
> commit economic suicide with all the cap & trade bullshit is reckless
> and irresponsible.
Why would Cap and Trade be economic suicide? It's a market based
solution to reduce emissions. It will cost what the market says it
will cost.
> The US has reduced emmissions tremendously over the lst few decades
> and the technology continues to improve. But you cannot legislate
> invention and progress to any large degree.
We most certainly have not reduced emissions. Carbon emissions in the
US have gone up year over year.
> When looking at all the greater advances in technology you will be
> hard pressed to find anything very beneficial due to government
> intervention.
The Manhattan Project. The Internet. NASA. The eradication of
Smallpox, the near eradication of Polio. All of the research
generated by government grants.
> You may as well pass laws that outlaw hunger or disease. Solutions
> will eventually be found but not due to a bunch of jet flying limosine
> riding politicians making it a law.
"Eventually" may be too late. Private industry may indeed find
solutions, but most industry responsible for emissions will continue
to pretend that the science doesn't exist because they have no
incentive to change.
Sure, the ice caps might melt in 100 years, but we need to satisfy our
shareholders today.
P. U. Stinkly
Thanks for the link. I read the article, obviously you didn't.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Nov 24, 10:01ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:27:19 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
>> <stinks...@gop.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >pyjamarama wrote:
>> >> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>>
>> >>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>>
>> >> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
>> >> claims...
>>
>> >> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
>> >> charlatans.
>>
>> >>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
>>
>> >Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>>
>> >To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
>> >of losers :)
>>
>> What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
>> not the result of human activity, but entirely natural? ÔøΩWould you be
>> for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
>> survive?
>
>Absolutely. Geoengineering is probably a messy business and I worry
>that we might do something that would cause more problems than it
>fixes, but if it's the best bet then I'm all for it. I vote we start
>algae farming right now.
Bah, I find that to be reprehensible and completely self serving.
Altering the environment for the sake of human existence is nothing
more than halting evolution.
Imagine if there was never the Chixulub meteorite impact. There would
arguably be no humans today. Do you subscribe to the idea we should
stop meteorites, too?
>Now, let me flip the question around. If it were to be shown to your
>satisfaction that warming was at least in part anthropogenic, would
>you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
I do support reducing greenhouse gasses. And I don't need to have a
gun pointed at my head to do it. You're the one that is going against
nature and wanting to meddle with complex ecosystems to suit your
needs.
I have an electric car. Do YOU have an electric car?
lab~rat >:-)
<last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> puked:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:03:38 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
><stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 24, 10:01ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:27:19 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
>>> <stinks...@gop.com> puked:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >pyjamarama wrote:
>>> >> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>>>
>>> >>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>>>
>>> >> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
>>> >> claims...
>>>
>>> >> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
>>> >> charlatans.
>>>
>>> >>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
>>>
>>> >Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>>>
>>> >To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
>>> >of losers :)
>>>
>>> What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
>>> not the result of human activity, but entirely natural? ÔøΩWould you be
>>> for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
>>> survive?
>>
>>Absolutely. Geoengineering is probably a messy business and I worry
>>that we might do something that would cause more problems than it
>>fixes, but if it's the best bet then I'm all for it. I vote we start
>>algae farming right now.
>>
>>Now, let me flip the question around. If it were to be shown to your
>>satisfaction that warming was at least in part anthropogenic, would
>>you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
>
>Most people with any sense are all for curbing pollution. But to
>commit economic suicide with all the cap & trade bullshit is reckless
>and irresponsible.
>The US has reduced emmissions tremendously over the lst few decades
>and the technology continues to improve. But you cannot legislate
>invention and progress to any large degree.
>When looking at all the greater advances in technology you will be
>hard pressed to find anything very beneficial due to government
>intervention.
>You may as well pass laws that outlaw hunger or disease. Solutions
>will eventually be found but not due to a bunch of jet flying limosine
>riding politicians making it a law.
A good law would be to outlaw cancer. While we're at it, let's do
that.
Stile4aly
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:03:38 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 24, 10:01Êam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:27:19 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
> >> <stinks...@gop.com> puked:
>
> >> >pyjamarama wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> >> >>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>
> >> >> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
> >> >> claims...
>
> >> >> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
> >> >> charlatans.
>
> >> >>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
>
> >> >Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>
> >> >To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
> >> >of losers :)
>
> >> What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
> >> for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
> >> survive?
>
> >Absolutely. Geoengineering is probably a messy business and I worry
> >that we might do something that would cause more problems than it
> >fixes, but if it's the best bet then I'm all for it. I vote we start
> >algae farming right now.
>
> Bah, I find that to be reprehensible and completely self serving.
> Altering the environment for the sake of human existence is nothing
> more than halting evolution.
Given that humans have evolved the capacity to alter their environment
in a manner greater than perhaps any other organism since the blue
green algae that oxygenated the atmosphere, I see nothing wrong with
altering the environment to ensure long term species survival.
> Imagine if there was never the Chixulub meteorite impact. There would
> arguably be no humans today. Do you subscribe to the idea we should
> stop meteorites, too?
I would argue that if the dinosaurs had the capability to stop the
impact that they would have. Evolution is a process, it is not a
prescription for moral imperatives. Yes, if we drive ourselves to
extinction then some new intelligent species may arise in another few
million years, or intelligence may never arise again on earth. The
question isn't what may or may not happen, but what we feel ought or
ought not happen.
> >Now, let me flip the question around. If it were to be shown to your
> >satisfaction that warming was at least in part anthropogenic, would
> >you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
>
> I do support reducing greenhouse gasses. And I don't need to have a
> gun pointed at my head to do it. You're the one that is going against
> nature and wanting to meddle with complex ecosystems to suit your
> needs.
It's not my first choice. If reducing greenhouse gases will do it
then that's all I propose we do. If that is not sufficient, then I
believe we should do what is necessary to ensure the survival of the
species.
> I have an electric car. Do YOU have an electric car?
I commend you. I do not own an electric car, but I work from home and
try to minimize my trips. I am seriously considering purchasing a
Volt next year.
lab~rat >:-)
<chine...@yahoo.com> puked:
>In article <j34og51795lb58otj...@4ax.com>,
> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>> Why do liberals want to modify the evolution of the planet? They're
>
>So polluting the planet to your benefit is natural evolution, but cleaning it up
>is unnatural interference.
How do you know what you're doing to it? How do you know that the
vibrations from windmills aren't causing harm to wildlife or migrating
species? How do you know farms of solar panels aren't creating plains
of unnatural amounts of heat and baking the ground and water table
below?
My point is that there are consequences to any action. If you want to
clean up your part of the world, that's great and you can lead by
example. The problem is legislating ecological morality.
Joe Irvin
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-3039D...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is
>
> carbon has
> bee injected into the atmosphere?
I don't know or have any idea ... are you implying that climate scientists
make up answers? Do you see anything wrong with making up scientific date
to arrive at preconceived hypothesis?
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to
> be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in
> character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a
> time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you,
> Sarah.
Joe Irvin
Sure did.
Dave Heil
> In article <j34og51795lb58otj...@4ax.com>,
> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
> injecting to the atmosphere was supposed to be part of the planetary evolution?
Apparently *all of it*. Is old carbon supposed to be more harmful than
new carbon?
Dave Heil
>> "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is
>
> bee injected into the atmosphere?
Volcanoes have done the job for years. "New" carbon gets "injected" by
means of forest fires or through the output of coniferous trees.
Poetic Justice
even create any jobs.
Bert Hyman
in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What part of digging up carbon that's on the order of a billion years
> old and injecting to the atmosphere was supposed to be part of the
> planetary evolution?
What do you mean "was supposed to be?"
Do you have access to Secret Information that we mere mortals don't?
Maybe you could tell us what the earth's climate is "supposed to be."
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Clairbear
Sidney is always headed in the wrong direction in his thought processes
Clairbear
news:h6cog59qkj351qm9g...@4ax.com:
Because the global warming fraudsters said so of course
Sid9
"Dave Heil" <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:xiXOm.18583$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
You must be an RRR.
"Is MORE carbon supposed to be more harmful than LESS carbon?"
That's how you should have framed the question.
But, what can you expect from a Retarded Republican Regressive.
PS...the answer is yes.
Sid9
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a18b7d34-ab0e-4915...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
.
It IS too late.
We can't stop it we can only slow it.
I don't think enough humans will agree on how to do it or whether to
do it.
We need to plan for the consequences of what we have done
miles
> I see you also think that polluting the earth is a natural development and
> cleaning it up is liberal interference. It's nice to know where people stand.
Pollution is always a bad thing. But the liberals claim that man is
causing global warming is a hoax for them to gain profit (Al Gore) and
power over the weak minded.
Bert Hyman
in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CCD9C885BB...@216.250.188.141>,
> I see you also think that polluting the earth is a natural development
The voices in your head are not a reliable source of information.
> and cleaning it up is liberal interference.
You seem to think that there's some sort of Divine Plan which has
determined what's "supposed to be."
> It's nice to know where people stand.
Maybe you could tell us what the earth's climate is "supposed to be."
Tom Sr.
> Because the global warming fraudsters said so of course
-----
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
-----
Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. You can download 26-
megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll have to set up
a free account before you can download the file.
So once all of theultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks
here are done reading thos material, get back to us rational people
with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove
your *claims* that climatplease e change is a fraud.
We'll be waiting!
-Tom Sr.
P. U. Stinkly
You wouldn't know it from what you posted. Were you home schooled?
pyjamarama
> >news:hehcg5$865$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Joe Irvin wrote:
> >>>news:heh1rg$sn9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> pyjamarama wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> >>>>>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
> >>>>> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
> >>>>> claims...
>
> >>>>> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
> >>>>> charlatans.
>
>
> >>>> Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>
> >>>> To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
> >>>> of losers :)
> >>> The New York Times, not a conservative paper, seems to be paying
> >>> attention:
> >>> "Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on
> >>> Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the
> >>> police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added,
> >>> however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on
> >>> the Internet was authentic.
>
> >>> But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times
> >>> confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail
> >>> messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the
> >>> public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an
> >>> international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at
> >>> least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental."
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2&em
>
> >>> Mr Gore said there was scientific 'consensus' that there is/was global
> >>> warming ... turns out that even the people who said there is/was global
> >>> warming didn't believe it but tried to cover up the fact that they
> >>> couldn't back up their claim of man made global warming.
> >> Thanks for the link. I read the article, obviously you didn't.
>
> > Sure did.
>
> You wouldn't know it from what you posted. Were you home schooled?
The matriculation rates amongst the home-schooled are significantly
higher than those in public schools...
Significantly.
Same goes for SAT scores.
f. barnes
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:38:47 -0800 (PST), "Tom Sr."
> that does not support their claims pretty much proves the point. If
> GW is so scientifically factual then why hide anything?
> A legitimate scientific conclusion considers ALL data, not just the
> data that can be used to support your claim.
> In science, when one omits data or is caught lying about data, all of
> the subsequent conclusions are disqualified as a result.
> Just like your deleting newsgroups from the header that are relevant
> to the thread disqualify you from being taken with any seriousness.- Hide quoted text -
>
They are trying to repair the damage, suddenly many articles are in
the news claiming it's "worse than we thought, a castrophe is
imminent.
http://www.uzbekistannews.net/story/569442
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/24/a-dismal-diagnosis.aspx
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20091124/NEWS/911249983
This a blatant, amateurish, propaganda campaign designed to scare us
all into ignoring those what in those hacked emails. Just pitiful!
They are running scared at being found out.
Neolibertarian
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> From ABC News, 11/24/09:
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>
> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>
> 26 Scientists Say Assessment Gives World Leaders Solid Data for
> Climate Summit
The Mayans, too, believed that only human sacrifice could maintain the
universe.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/convince_me.wav
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
� You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
� Beginning with yourself.
� And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
Clairbear
news:dadfc6a2-c9eb-45c3...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 5:59锟絧m, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:38:47 -0800 (PST), "Tom Sr."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 4:33锟絧m, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Because the global warming fraudsters said so of course
>>
>> >-----
>> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
>> >-----
>>
>> >Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
>> >were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. 锟結ou can download 26-
>> >megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You锟絣l have to set
>> >up a free account before you can download the file.
>>
>> >So once all of theultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks
>> >here are done reading thos material, get back to us rational people
>> >with exact quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove
>> >your *claims* that climatplease e change is a fraud.
>>
>> >We'll be waiting!
>>
>> > -Tom Sr.
>>
>> The fact that you climate experts from 锟絘ll over the world hid data
>> that does not support their claims pretty much proves the point. 锟絀f
>> GW is so scientifically factual then why hide anything?
>> A legitimate scientific conclusion considers ALL data, not just the
>> data that can be used to support your claim.
>> In science, when one omits data or is caught lying about data, all of
>> the subsequent conclusions are disqualified as a result.
>> Just like your deleting newsgroups from the header that are relevant
>> to the thread disqualify you from being taken with any seriousness.-
>> Hide
> quoted text -
>>
>
>
> They are trying to repair the damage, suddenly many articles are in
> the news claiming it's "worse than we thought, a castrophe is
> imminent.
>
> http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091124/latest-science-shows-climate-
chan
> ge-outpacing-previous-projections
>
> http://www.uzbekistannews.net/story/569442
>
> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/24/a-
di
> smal-diagnosis.aspx
>
> http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20091124/NEWS/911249983
>
>
> This a blatant, amateurish, propaganda campaign designed to scare us
> all into ignoring those what in those hacked emails. Just pitiful!
> They are running scared at being found out.
>
Seems as those exposing their frad has made the all chicken little crazy
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling"
I don't agree with hacking email accounts but these guy did the world a
service by revealing the fraudulent practices of these so called
scientists
Sid9
"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:dadfc6a2-c9eb-45c3...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
This discussion is moot.
It's too late to do anything about global warming.
The best we can do is slow the disaster.
Jimmy Carter, engineer was right.
R. Reagan, senile old actor was wrong.
28 years wasted!
Sid9
"pyjamarama" <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2654c36a-68cb-4bc8...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
.
Sure.
Incompetents, not qualified to teach, creating new incompetents!
Bret Cahill
> > our
> > shareholders today.
> It IS too late.
> We can't stop it we can only slow it.
> I don't think enough humans will agree on how to do it or whether to
> do it.
> We need to plan for the consequences of what we have done
By buying BNSF Warren Buffet just bet the ranch that oil will soar and
there'll be a lot on money hauling coal.
In other words, the world's most astute investor doesn't think there
is any chance whatsoever of curbing CO2 emissions.
Bret Cahill
Clairbear
news:heib7p$9i8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:dadfc6a2-c9eb-45c3-9070-
5831cf...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091124/latest-science-shows-climate-
cha
>> nge-outpacing-previous-projections
>>
>> http://www.uzbekistannews.net/story/569442
>>
>> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/24/a-
d
>> ismal-diagnosis.aspx
>>
>> http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20091124/NEWS/911249983
>>
>>
>> This a blatant, amateurish, propaganda campaign designed to scare us
>> all into ignoring those what in those hacked emails. Just pitiful!
>> They are running scared at being found out.
> .
> .
> This discussion is moot.
>
> It's too late to do anything about global warming.
>
> The best we can do is slow the disaster.
>
> Jimmy Carter, engineer was right.
>
> R. Reagan, senile old actor was wrong.
>
> 28 years wasted!
>
Still wrong after all these years, chicken little.
So now you are trying to blame global warming on Reagan What's next, are
you gonna blame the extinction of unicorms on him, too?
Speaking senile how that Alazhiemers treatment going for you?
lab~rat >:-)
<stil...@yahoo.com> puked:
>On Nov 24, 12:42ÔøΩpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:03:38 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
>> <stile4...@yahoo.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 10:01ÔøΩam, "lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:27:19 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
>> >> <stinks...@gop.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >pyjamarama wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 24, 7:58 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> From ABC News, 11/24/09:http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=9159815
>>
>> >> >>> Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out
>>
>> >> >> "Global Warming Report" finds manufactured data and fraudulent
>> >> >> claims...
>>
>> >> >> Face it, Harry -- you and your ilk have been exposed as utter
>> >> >> charlatans.
>>
>> >> >>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
>>
>> >> >Wow! A BLOG!!! That *proves* that globble warming is a *HOAX*!!!!
>>
>> >> >To bad nobody is paying attention to you and your pathetic little group
>> >> >of losers :)
>>
>> >> What if one day we determined that global warming is unquestionably
>> >> not the result of human activity, but entirely natural? ÔøΩWould you be
>> >> for synthetically altering the environment just so humans could
>> >> survive?
>>
>> >Absolutely. ÔøΩGeoengineering is probably a messy business and I worry
>> >that we might do something that would cause more problems than it
>> >fixes, but if it's the best bet then I'm all for it. ÔøΩI vote we start
>> >algae farming right now.
>>
>> Bah, I find that to be reprehensible and completely self serving.
>> Altering the environment for the sake of human existence is nothing
>> more than halting evolution.
>
>Given that humans have evolved the capacity to alter their environment
>in a manner greater than perhaps any other organism since the blue
>green algae that oxygenated the atmosphere, I see nothing wrong with
>altering the environment to ensure long term species survival.
I don't believe that to be true for a moment. Plant life alters the
environment far more vastly than humans have throughout the world. If
plants were sentient, do you think that they would consider
restricting their spread for the good of humankind?
>> Imagine if there was never the Chixulub meteorite impact. ÔøΩThere would
>> arguably be no humans today. ÔøΩDo you subscribe to the idea we should
>> stop meteorites, too?
>
>I would argue that if the dinosaurs had the capability to stop the
>impact that they would have. Evolution is a process, it is not a
>prescription for moral imperatives.
I agree with that. However, the Obama administration is attempting to
legislate a tax grab based on moral imperatives.
>Yes, if we drive ourselves to
>extinction then some new intelligent species may arise in another few
>million years, or intelligence may never arise again on earth. The
>question isn't what may or may not happen, but what we feel ought or
>ought not happen.
Once again, who are we to make that determination? We've been factory
farming for decades to provide food for our population and have been
using genetically engineered feed, seed and animals to do it. We have
been changing river flows and moving water for irrigation for hundreds
of years.
Now we're considering covering stretches of the desert with synthetic
materials to provide electricity, and that's considered "good". We're
altering the weather to suit our needs.
My point is that going "green" will have unintended consequences to
our planet, as much as not being green. Making a smaller footprint
should be something we aspire to, not something that gives
corporations huge chunks of our tax dollars gained by penalizing
people for living their lives.
>> >Now, let me flip the question around. ÔøΩIf it were to be shown to your
>> >satisfaction that warming was at least in part anthropogenic, would
>> >you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
>>
>> I do support reducing greenhouse gasses. ÔøΩAnd I don't need to have a
>> gun pointed at my head to do it. ÔøΩYou're the one that is going against
>> nature and wanting to meddle with complex ecosystems to suit your
>> needs.
>
>It's not my first choice. If reducing greenhouse gases will do it
>then that's all I propose we do. If that is not sufficient, then I
>believe we should do what is necessary to ensure the survival of the
>species.
Just something to think about, the build greenhouses for a reason.
>> I have an electric car. ÔøΩDo YOU have an electric car?
>
>I commend you. I do not own an electric car, but I work from home and
>try to minimize my trips. I am seriously considering purchasing a
>Volt next year.
lab~rat >:-)
<last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> puked:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:09:44 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:34:33 -0800, Once in a China Blue Moon
>><chine...@yahoo.com> puked:
>>
>>>In article <j34og51795lb58otj...@4ax.com>,
>>> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do liberals want to modify the evolution of the planet? They're
>>>
>>>So polluting the planet to your benefit is natural evolution, but cleaning it up
>>>is unnatural interference.
>>
>>How do you know what you're doing to it? How do you know that the
>>vibrations from windmills aren't causing harm to wildlife or migrating
>>species? How do you know farms of solar panels aren't creating plains
>>of unnatural amounts of heat and baking the ground and water table
>>below?
>>
>>My point is that there are consequences to any action. If you want to
>>clean up your part of the world, that's great and you can lead by
>>example. The problem is legislating ecological morality.
>
>Animal activists have already bitched about how many birds are killed
>by the huge wind turbines.
>The Sharp manufacturing plant in Memphis TN makes those big solar
>panels. Sharp gets its power from the same power company as everyone
>else in the city which generates most of its electrical power from the
>coal fired Allen Steam Plant. It takes more electrical energy for the
>manufacture of a single solar panel than it does to power an average
>home for a month.
>Interesting that it takes a lot of "carbon" in order to produce
>"green" products eh?
>
>The government claims that they are thinking of our future while
>making knee jerk decisions about that same future. For example,
>wonder how many owners of those nifty battery powered cars actually
>think about the shitload of toxic waste that is contained in those
>battery packs. Just like the mercury vapor "green" light bulbs, once
>a large portion of the population starts using such technology,
>someone will eventually have to deal with the logistics of disposing
>or recycling all of the toxic substances contained within the used and
>depleted "green" products. Of course none of that is important now.
>All that matters is that they call it "green" and it makes people feel
>good about using it.
Well, I see no problem with using cloth shopping bags and whatnot, but
a lot of the programs put into place are political payback and are
built around making people money.
Geo
>
> >http://www.uzbekistannews.net/story/569442
>
> >http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/24/a-...
>
> >http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20091124/NEWS/911249983
>
> > This a blatant, amateurish, propaganda campaign designed to scare us
> > all into ignoring those what in those hacked emails. Just pitiful!
> > They are running scared at being found out.
>
> .
> .
> This discussion is moot.
>
> It's too late to do anything about global warming.
>
> The best we can do is slow the disaster.
>
> Jimmy Carter, engineer was right.
>
> R. Reagan, senile old actor was wrong.
>
> 28 years wasted!
Yes, it is moot. Your side has been exposed as lying BS artists.
They couldn't even be honest in the debate. How does it feel to be on
the side of liars? Wait, your a dummycrat, you know the feeling well.
Tom Sr.
> The fact that you climate experts from all over the world hid data
> that does not support their claims pretty much proves the point.
HELLO??? Anyone home?!
Where is you "fact"?
I just gave you a link (quote above) to all the material that was
stolen and therefore thr opportunity to read it and quote exact, in
context, and to be able to reference these citations as well.
So where is your "fact"?! <looking around> I don't see any.
WHEN you are done reading all the hacked material, as I said before,
do get back to us with your citations and proof from this source
materials that your so-called "Climategate" is real -- and not a
ultraconservative delusion.
You haven't done that yet -- nor as any other far-fight-winger that I
have give this same information to -- so until you do, you haven't any
facts.
As I said, get back to us *after* you have done so -- *AND* the same
applies to all you *other* climate-change deniers.
The rest of us are all *still* waiting!
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
wrote:
> "Where is you fact"
> First try learning English.
I'm dyslexic. Do you enjoy insulting those with disabilities?
> Secondly, try reading some of the emails such as the one below where
> they are openly talking of hiding data showing the cooling trend.
-----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
Harrabin's Notes: E-mail arguments
In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin,
assesses the arguments sparked by the leaking of information on
climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE: METHODOLOGY QUESTIONED
Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the University of
East Anglia are facing a fierce attack from climate sceptics following
the hacking of the university's computer.
The hacker stole thousands of e-mails and data. Much of it has been
posted on the web. And some of the e-mails are causing acute
embarrassment.
My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of
context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of
conversations between scientists working on some of the most
complicated questions of our times.
They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own
inboxes were emptied out for the world to see. How much of what we had
said to close colleagues in industry jargon would be liable to
misinterpretation?
"If the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) can't do
closed e-mail, no-one with any expertise could do anything. I don't
know how you are supposed to work if you don't have e-mail," my source
said.
But the e-mail stash is proving a treasure trove for sceptics who have
challenged every facet of climate science and policy.
Some of the e-mails reveal the frustration and annoyance among
mainstream climate researchers about the probings they face from
critics who relentlessly question their methodology.
And although my contact insists that the e-mails are about how data is
presented and interpreted, sceptics say the e-mailers may have been
discussing how the data could be manipulated.
The CRU has been repeatedly asked to publish the entire data set from
which it compiled an important grid-based record of global
temperatures.
It says it will publish full details when it has clearance from all
the world's meteorological offices whose permission is needed.
But speaking to my source at the CRU, it is also clear that the unit
has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and
unreasonable demands for data - and that there is personal animus
against their intellectual rivals.
Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia - but the
revelations come at a sensitive time as the world's nations gather for
the climate meeting in Copenhagen.
-----
First Post wrote:
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
-----
My CRU source points out that its unpublished full data set is almost
identical to the ones at the National Climatic Data Center and the
Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
-----
You have one isolated case that someone *might* have done
something wrong. Do you know what *exactly* "Mike's Nature trick"
refers to in a scientific concept?
I bet you *never* bothered to check.
**********
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
Quote:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this
evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick"
refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate
forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature
by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting
recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This
places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature
changes over longer time scales.
The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree
ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records
after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998,
suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature
in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in
Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence
problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the
science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but
technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the
peer reviewed literature.
Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who
actually read the links people share, even more information is
available here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/
**********
In the email text you quoted, the author says this: "The latter
two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH..." I
understand this to be that one set of figures are the *exact* figures
-- while the other set is an *estimate*.
Oh dear. Someone somewhere at sometime used "Mike's Nature
trick" to made AN ESTIMATE!!!
Oh good-golly, gosh-gee, It *must* be...da-da-
DA..."CLIMATEGATE"!!!
So the actual cinclusion of this information is the REALITY that this
'hide the decline" comment does NOTHING to alter the full set of data
from CRU, which is confirmed by National Climatic Data Center and the
Goddard Institute of Studies, both located in the United States of
America.
In other words, your climate-change deniers end up with *nothing*
that proves CRU's complete date information is WRONG.
-----
Both of these are in the US, where there are no restrictions on
publication. The CRU view is that when the sceptics see the full data
in due course they will be very disappointed.
The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite
continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say
officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the
climate is now more than 90%.
One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at
99%.
But the email controversy may prove an uncomfortable moment in the
careers of some researchers in the spotlight and will undoubtedly
provoke demands for renewed scrutiny of the CRU's influential work.
These demands may surface in the US Senate, where climate change
sceptics and their allies are holding up the energy and climate bill
which President Obama needs before he can sign a legally-binding
agreement over cutting emissions.
Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic from the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, which is funded by US business interests, told me: "We
sceptics have been winning the argument for some time and this will
further undermine confidence in IPCC science.
"This is very embarrassing indeed for the scientists behind these
emails."
The climate science website RealClimate sees the CRU computer raid as
the latest attempt by lobbyists to discredit mainstream climate
science at a critical time.
It explains in detail what it says is the legitimate scientific
rationale behind some of the apparently incriminating emails, and says
they offer a glimpse into the real world of science.
It says people should not be shocked by "scientists who are friendly
and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times
about details and engaging in 'robust' discussions; scientists
expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in
politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong;
scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research
to deal with over-hyped nonsense...
"It's obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere
will generate a lot of noise about this," says RealClimate. "But it's
important to remember that… gravity isn't a useful theory because
Newton was a nice person."
-----
"Look, a molehill!" scream CC-deniers. "Let's make a planet out of
it!"
"The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU [Climatic
Research Unit]. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of
climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence
that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.
One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at
99%."
Welcome to Reality. Do try to stay awake.
-Tom Sr.
f. barnes
> On Nov 25, 10:37 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > "Where is you fact"
> > First try learning English.
>
> I'm dyslexic. Do you enjoy insulting those with disabilities?
>
> > Secondly, try reading some of the emails such as the one below where
> > they are openly talking of hiding data showing the cooling trend.
>
If that's the case then where is the big campaign to get third
worlders to stop having so damn many babies? And where is the big
campaign to stop third worlders from migrating to western countries
where their carbon footprint will be larger? Where?
Tom Sr.
> If that's the case then where is the big campaign to get third
> worlders to stop having so damn many babies?
Since when is China a 3rd-world nation? They have had a program
underway (one-child only per family) to reduce their population for
decades now.
> And where is the big campaign
> to stop third worlders from migrating to western countries
> where their carbon footprint will be larger? Where?
Where is the campaign to send lots of people for western nations to
third-world nations to reduce their carbon footprints? That would be
even *more* effective!
The centeral thing you ultraconservative extermists really, truly HATE
about the reality of Climate Change is that is a WORLD-WIDE PROBLEM
that will take a WORLD-WIDE SOLUTION.
You cannot emotionally or ethically understand the *fact* that the
United States is a big part of our world's problem in Climate Change
and that it will require our nation to work *WITH* the rest of the
world to solve it.
That goes against the most basic self--only-centered personality trait
that is the core of all far-right-wing philosophy.
Here is The Big Clue: The biggest threat to humanity is our OVER-
POPULATION. It is over-population that is causing Climate Change. It
is over-population that is using up the amount of oil and coal in the
world. It is over-population that is behind world-hunger. There are
many more dangers to us, major problems that are happening *now* and
will grow far worst in the future, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY
FUCKING PEOPLE ON OUR PLANET.
AND WE ARE CONSTANTLY ADDING MORE AND MORE AND MORE PEOPLE EVERY DAY,
EVERY HOUR, EVER SECOND!
What is the carbon footprint of 1 billion people? 7 billion people?
14 billion people?!
How much food, energy, housing is available to 7 billion people? To
14 billion people?
We will do what we can -- and we must -- to slow Global Warming. BUT
the only way we will ever be able reverse it is by our -- and I mean
everyone on on planet's -- our reducing our Earth's total population.
And it doesn't matter if you like it or not.
-Tom Sr.
Lamont Cranston
Very well stated. Kudos.
Joe Irvin
"Tom Sr." <tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad9d085-3b0d-4191...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 6:59 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:38:47 -0800 (PST), "Tom Sr."
>
>
>
>
>
> <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 4:33 pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Because the global warming fraudsters said so of course
>
> >-----
> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
> >-----
>
> >Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
> >were hacked by some of the far-right-wing. You can download 26-
HELLO??? Anyone home?!
You may want to read the UK Telegraph. It quotes from the hacked material.
Here is just a sample: "I�ｿｽve just completed Mike�ｿｽs Nature trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981
onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith�ｿｽs to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can�ｿｽt account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can�ｿｽt. The CERES data published in the August BAMS
09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data
are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He�ｿｽs not in at the moment �ｿｽ minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don�ｿｽt have his new
email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
Man-made global warming seems to be a grand scam on a Bernie Madoff scale
... freezing dissenters of man-made global warming out of the peer review
process.
-Tom Sr.
Tom Sr.
wrote:
> Tom Sr. wrote:
> > We will do what we can -- and we must -- to slow Global Warming. BUT
> > the only way we will ever be able reverse it is by our -- and I mean
> > everyone on on planet's -- our reducing our Earth's total population.
> > And it doesn't matter if you like it or not.
> Very well stated. Kudos.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cranston.
Sorry about all the mispellings and such. I'm dyslexic and even when
I proofread, I still don't catch a lot of them. *sigh*
-Tom Sr.
Joe Irvin
news:4ad9d085-3b0d-4191...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
HELLO??? Anyone home?!
You may want to read the UK Telegraph. It quotes from the hacked material.
Here is just a sample: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981
onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS
09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data
are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new
Clairbear
c1a05e...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 7:06�pm, Clairbear <cl...@Verizon.net> wrote:
>> --
>> Ranting like that makes you rational, Keep on dreaming
>
> "Ranting"?! What ranting? However, you are correct in that I am
> *rational*, unlike you.
Can't comprehend what you read I guess you are beyond help
> I offered you a chance to prove your *claim* by giving you the ability
> to read all the documents and then post proof with direct references
> to this material, proving that the ultraconservative extermists
> *claims* of some supposed "Climategate" are real.
>
>> Fact is man made global warming is a scam
>
> Just because you **believe* something is a "fact", Clair, does NOT
> mean it is,
So hiding results that contradict a theory is Good science in you book
> What I see here and now with you -- and I expect the vast majority of
> *rational* posters do as well -- if that I have give you and the other
> climate-chnage deniers in this subject the opportunity to PROVE to the
> rest of us that your "Climategate" is real.
The climate has alawys change with out with out human interference
Nobody denies that but top say it is mankind's fault is proving to be
based on bad scientific technque or a totally disregard for it
> Given your response, shall I assume that you are NOT going to make any
> personal effort to PROVE any of your *claims* are indeed facts?!
Read thew articles posted in this and other threads The point has
already been proven just because you can't see the truith when it's
right in front of you does not mean we should hold your klittle hand an
lead you around like a six yearold
> If you cannot be bother to read and learned the *actual* facts, then
> any *opinion* of yours with regards to climate-change somehow being a
> "scam" is totally worthless.
>
> Your choice to remain ignorant does not come as a surprise, Clair.
>
> -Tom Sr.
>
So is it frank or tom you seem to be as confused about your identity as
you are about the fraudsters and how they pulled the wool over your
eyes. If you can be fooled by algore we can't help you' Enjoy your
blindness I hope it does not interfer with you Thankgiving day of Course
with the Detroit Lions palying on TV tommorrow it really won't be a big
deal for you
Clairbear
8c28-904...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
you willing blinness to the facts that have been presenting is
astounding Not to be unexpected from someone who regards algore's movie
as gospel but astounding noe the less.
Clairbear
news:mljqg5hdcgu2u3702...@4ax.com:
> "Where is you fact"
> First try learning English.
> Secondly, try reading some of the emails such as the one below where
> they are openly talking of hiding data showing the cooling trend.
>
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=
942777075.t
> xt
>
> From: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: ray bradley <rbra...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> mhu...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> Cc: k.br...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.os...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
> N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
> 1999
> for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
> data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
>
You're baking up the wrong tree by presenting facts to one of algore's
disiple. Useful idiots are the global warming frauster's best friends
f.barnes
> On Nov 25, 11:46 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > If that's the case then where is the big campaign to get third
> > worlders to stop having so damn many babies?
>
> Since when is China a 3rd-world nation? They have had a program
> underway (one-child only per family) to reduce their population for
> decades now.
You can't read can you? Where did I mention China? Point it out
please.
>
> > And where is the big campaign
> > to stop third worlders from migrating to western countries
> > where their carbon footprint will be larger? Where?
>
> Where is the campaign to send lots of people for western nations to
> third-world nations to reduce their carbon footprints? That would be
> even *more* effective!
>
> The centeral thing you ultraconservative extermists really, truly HATE
> about the reality of Climate Change is that is a WORLD-WIDE PROBLEM
> that will take a WORLD-WIDE SOLUTION.
>
> You cannot emotionally or ethically understand the *fact* that the
> United States is a big part of our world's problem in Climate Change
> and that it will require our nation to work *WITH* the rest of the
> world to solve it.
>
> That goes against the most basic self--only-centered personality trait
> that is the core of all far-right-wing philosophy.
>
> Here is The Big Clue: The biggest threat to humanity is our OVER-
> POPULATION. It is over-population that is causing Climate Change. It
> is over-population that is using up the amount of oil and coal in the
> world. It is over-population that is behind world-hunger. There are
> many more dangers to us, major problems that are happening *now* and
> will grow far worst in the future, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY
> FUCKING PEOPLE ON OUR PLANET.
That's what i said. You can't read can you/
Tom Sr.
> On Nov 25, 11:25 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 11:46 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > > If that's the case then where is the big campaign to get third
> > > worlders to stop having so damn many babies?
>
> > Since when is China a 3rd-world nation? They have had a program
> > underway (one-child only per family) to reduce their population for
> > decades now.
Try to follow the logic in what I reply to what you wrote. Or perhaps
that is beyond your reading comprehension level.
> You can't read can you? Where did I mention China? Point it out
> please.
> --
> > > And where is the big campaign
> > > to stop third worlders from migrating to western countries
> > > where their carbon footprint will be larger? Where?
> --
> > Where is the campaign to send lots of people for western nations to
> > third-world nations to reduce their carbon footprints? That would be
> > even *more* effective!
>
> > The centeral thing you ultraconservative extermists really, truly HATE
> > about the reality of Climate Change is that is a WORLD-WIDE PROBLEM
> > that will take a WORLD-WIDE SOLUTION.
>
> > You cannot emotionally or ethically understand the *fact* that the
> > United States is a big part of our world's problem in Climate Change
> > and that it will require our nation to work *WITH* the rest of the
> > world to solve it.
> > That goes against the most basic self--only-centered personality trait
> > that is the core of all far-right-wing philosophy.
> > Here is The Big Clue: The biggest threat to humanity is our OVER-
> > POPULATION. It is over-population that is causing Climate Change. It
> > is over-population that is using up the amount of oil and coal in the
> > world. It is over-population that is behind world-hunger. There are
> > many more dangers to us, major problems that are happening *now* and
> > will grow far worst in the future, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY
> > FUCKING PEOPLE ON OUR PLANET.
>
> That's what i said. You can't read can you/
You said no such thing. You don't even believe global warming is
real.
-Tom Sr.
Neolibertarian
<chine.bleu-B048D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <j34og51795lb58otj...@4ax.com>,
> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > Why do liberals want to modify the evolution of the planet? They're
>
> What part of digging up carbon that's on the order of a billion years old and
> injecting to the atmosphere was supposed to be part of the planetary
> evolution?
Are you saying that Greenpeace needs to go around the planet corking all
the volcanoes now?
Won't that be rather difficult, even for them? Along the Mid Atlantic
Ridge, for instance?