Climategate - criminal charges may follow
naebad
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM
Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as
"ClimateGate."
It all started when an alleged whistleblower from the UK's Hadley
Centre
leaked e-mails detailing how temperature data was being forged to
prove
alleged "manmade global warming." Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted
"climate skeptic," says the actions were criminal and should be
prosecuted.
"The Hadley-CRU temperature data set is simply a joke. It has no
scientific
data whatsoever," he asserts. "It's simply made up; it's just
nonsense.
Monckton notes that the information was available under the UK's
Freedom of
Information Act, and accuses the Hadley Centre of conspiring with the
Interesting that Piper,AWS and co have been silent on this matter. Not
so much as a squeek out of them.
It's not their fault of course - they like most of the world were
duped. A simple apology would be in order however for calling us all
Rightards if I apologise for calling all of you Leftards!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) to destroy the
data
and e-mails before the public got a hold of it.
"They conspired together and with other people to destroy Freedom of
Information Act data which they knew had been requested and they knew
had
been validly requested," states Monckton.
"That is a serious criminal offense [which] carries a very large
fine," he
continues. "There are scales of one to five for fines, and this one is
a
five which I think at the moment is at least £10,000 -- and if you
don't pay
it you go to prison."
Monckton argues that the criminal offenses go beyond the Freedom of
Information Act, that they are crimes against science itself. He notes
that
temperature data sets from the Hadley Centre and CRU are used to
calibrate
NASA satellites that are in turn used to track global temperatures.
naebad
Should read as follows -
On Dec 2, 9:14 am, naebad <nae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Piper,AWS and co have been silent on this matter. Not
so much as a squeek out of them.
It's not their fault of course - they like most of the world were
duped. A simple apology would be in order however for calling us all
Rightards if I apologise for calling all of you Leftards!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global-warming data sets 'simply made up'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM
Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as
"ClimateGate."
It all started when an alleged whistleblower from the UK's Hadley
Centre
leaked e-mails detailing how temperature data was being forged to
prove
alleged "manmade global warming." Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted
"climate skeptic," says the actions were criminal and should be
prosecuted.
"The Hadley-CRU temperature data set is simply a joke. It has no
scientific
data whatsoever," he asserts. "It's simply made up; it's just
nonsense.
Monckton notes that the information was available under the UK's
Freedom of
Information Act, and accuses the Hadley Centre of conspiring with the
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) to destroy the
Scotty
For those who might be interested. Top posted to save your time:
Vindication is nice but revenge is sweeter. These guys have been condemned
by their own hand. Other scams by the greens (for want of a better name):
the banning of DDT, millions of kids dead per year, subsequently lifted.
The Montreal Protocol to save us all from skin cancer, 20 years later the
hole is still there. And now Man-Made climate warming is exposed.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/dangers-of-a-monoculture-reactions-to-the-hadley-emails.html
"this is like the Catholic Church enforcing a banned books list and then
claiming that everything in print supports the Church�ｿｽs position."
"For years, with the media�ｿｽs active participation, criticism of the
mainstream scientific position on global warming has been painted as
somehow outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. Skeptics are called
deniers, (even in these hallowed halls) with the intent to equate them with
those who deny the Holocaust. At every turn, global warming activists with
the help of the media, have tried to make it uncomfortable, even
impossible, to criticize the science of catastrophic man-made global
warming. In the extreme, this has degenerated into outright threats.
NASA�ｿｽs James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for
"high crimes against humanity". Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring, "This is treason. And we need to
start treating them as traitors". In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal
companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO�ｿｽs "should be in jail for
all of eternity".
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a
comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled
in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and
your kind while you sleep in your beds", stated the remarks, which Romm
defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for
skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for
government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown "into jail". In
2007, The Weather Channel�ｿｽs climate expert called for withholding
certification of skeptical meteorologists".
From the comments:
"In short, when researchers report that the climate is getting warmer,
there is still no good answer to the question Warmer than what?"
"My children get schooled every day about how the world is coming to an end
(so do all of yours). When I explain to them that its not true and that
these folks don�ｿｽt really know as much as they say they do about the planet,
they look at me like Im some kind of goof. The teachers take off points if
the kids don�ｿｽt get that the planet is about to burst into flames. The
ridicule is subtle but persistent that Al Gores vision is the future and
you must learn it.
If you can�ｿｽt see the greater scope of just how dangerous and criminal this
behavior is, you're a fool".
Original URL added:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=791202
>Global-warming data sets 'simply made up'
>Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM
>
> Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as
>"ClimateGate."
>
>It all started when an alleged whistleblower from the UK's Hadley
>Centre leaked e-mails detailing how temperature data was being forged to
>prove alleged "manmade global warming." Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted
>"climate skeptic," says the actions were criminal and should be prosecuted.
>
>"The Hadley-CRU temperature data set is simply a joke. It has no
>scientific data whatsoever," he asserts. "It's simply made up; it's just
>nonsense.
>
>Monckton notes that the information was available under the UK's
>Freedom of Information Act, and accuses the Hadley Centre of conspiring with the
<snipped to restore the original>
>University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) to destroy the
>data and e-mails before the public got a hold of it.
>
>"They conspired together and with other people to destroy Freedom of
>Information Act data which they knew had been requested and they knew
>had been validly requested," states Monckton.
>
>"That is a serious criminal offense [which] carries a very large
>fine," he continues. "There are scales of one to five for fines, and this one is
>a five which I think at the moment is at least �ｿｽ10,000 -- and if you
The Phantom Piper
> Should read as follows -
>
> On Dec 2, 9:14 am, naebad <nae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Piper,AWS and co have been silent on this matter. Not
> so much as a squeek out of them.
> It's not their fault of course - they like most of the world were
> duped. A simple apology would be in order however for calling us all
> Rightards if I apologise for calling all of you Leftards!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apology accepted Hardy. I promise never to be such a prat again. I see
that the guy in charge has stood down from the climate place in
England.
The Phantom Piper
Dom
> Global-warming data sets 'simply made up'
> Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM
>
> Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as
> "ClimateGate."
When this story broke, I immediately thought of Cyril L. Burt, the
British psychologist many of whose publications were based on
falsified data. Then I thought of all the flimflam "research" that is
ballyhooed by pseudo-educators.
Scotty
I seem to recall that the main criticism of Burt was because he came down
on the nature side of the nature/nurture debate.
Don't forget that the biggest fraudster of all was the founder of
psychology, Sigmund Freud.
But in the area of science Climategate is up there....
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:htnfh5l587vna7vhs...@4ax.com...
"Climategate!"
LOL
How desperate can the deniers get. Misrepresentation of a few stolen e-mails
by a few right-wing hacks and it's
'Climategate'. Dear oh dear.
I'm surprised at you falling for yet more of this crap. More noise for the
machine. I hope there *are* prosecutions - for libel and defamation of
character.
Meanwhile the temperatures continue to rise.
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:htnfh5l587vna7vhs...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:43:51 -0800 (PST), Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 1, 3:14 pm, naebad <nae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Global-warming data sets 'simply made up'
>>>> Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM
>>>>
>>>> Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as
>>>> "ClimateGate."
>>>[snip]
snip
>> But in the area of science Climategate is up there....
>
>"Climategate!"
>LOL
>How desperate can the deniers get. Misrepresentation of a few stolen e-mails
>by a few right-wing hacks and it's
>'Climategate'. Dear oh dear.
Tut, tut all you like, it's not a pretty picture.
>I'm surprised at you falling for yet more of this crap. More noise for the
>machine. I hope there *are* prosecutions - for libel and defamation of
>character.
>Meanwhile the temperatures continue to rise.
You might be right, but how would we know? THAT is, in my mind, the crime.
I wish I could say that the modifications to the temp record was "done in
good faith" on a "best effort" basis except that one of the email exchanges
says, "to hide the decline"!
We are surrounded by evidence that we are not anywhere near the Medieval
Warm Period temps of the Viking era, when Greenland was green and arable
and GOOD times. For example in today's postings La N posted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8393952.stm
The article says that the shoreline has retreated 100 meters which we can
confirm because we also know that the Glaciers haven't melted yet. Roll on
the good times, unfortunately it seems as if we are actually cooling, else
why would they be eager to hide the decline? Damn!
Another example from the emails: they were trying to bridge a gap in the
record and decided to fill it with tree ring data from four trees in
Siberia, they had 11 (I think) similar trees to choose from, why only use
four of them.
Not forgetting the skulduggery of getting publication editors fired and
boycotting others, and thwarting the peer review process, not nice guys and
zero credibility!
Another, not forgetting that there is zero evidence that, if there is
warming, that it is due to, not just to CO2 but MANMADE CO2 which means
that there is NOTHING we can do to contain the "increase" in temp. And yet
these guys are insisting that we throw hundreds of billions (with a B) of
dollars at the "problem" that we can do nothing about,
I've said to you before that we should reduce the pollution but not with
this kind of crap. My Dad always said never lie, the truth will out
eventually.
It also puzzled me why the people who were bleating the loudest about
excessive carbon use simaltaneously rejected the only zero carbon, baseload
generation available, they obviously didn't think that not reducing carbon
use was a risk, it just didn't compute.
Bah, Humbug.
--
Trust is a commodity that you can only sell once.
S�im� mac Liam
news:GKednd80LYIyVoXW...@westnet.com.au:
--
Saint S�im� mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Bryn Fraser
wrote:
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote innews:GKednd80LYIyVoXW...@westnet.com.au:
> Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
> Prophet of The Great Tagger
>
> - Show quoted text -
From The Times December 5, 2009
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate dataBen Webster,
Environment Editor
(Graham Crouch)
Scientists measure the fast-reducing Rathong glacier in the Indian
state of Sikkim, near the Nepalese border
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after
admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global
warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the
Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the
extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature
data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body
relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to
the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change
talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out
the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate
change sceptics.
The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s
Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-
mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt
to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
[..]
Bryn
S�im� mac Liam
news:08c05066-f21b-4372...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 5, 1:10�am, "S�im� mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote
>> innews:GKednd80LYIyVoXWnZ2dnUVZ8vWd
> nZ...@westnet.com.au:
>> Saint S�im� mac Liam
And the Indians are saying that the Himalayan glaciers have pretty much
stopped shinking.
--
Saint S�im� mac Liam
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> And the Indians are saying that the Himalayan
> glaciers have pretty much stopped shinking.
What are the Africans saying?
http://www.soulisfree.com/images/07/June/tanzania.jpg
Reading "The Stones Of Kilimanjaro,"
The Phantom Piper
HardySpicer
Arse wipe has clearly not read the emails...Typical denialist of the
truth.
The truth is that the temp last century rose by 1 degree C and nothing
this century so far.
Hardy
S�im� mac Liam
6d78-4538-ab8...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
According to Kaser et al ( 2004, Int�l J of Climatology) the shrinking of
the Kilimanjaro glacer is not due to warming but the peculiar geography of
the mountain and reduced moisture at mid-troposphere.
HardySpicer
wrote:
Look, whatever the truth of the matter - and I admit it could go
either way, there is no doubt that the main thing that has suffered is
the publics faith in Science.
If people can go around fiddling results and getting away with it then
there is no hope. Personally I think we do need to do something about
polution, and think carefully about renewable energy where possible.
As for this carbon trading scam however, it is just that. A method
(politically motivated) for getting money out of richer countries and
giving it to poorer countries under the guise of global warming. In
fact a lot of that money will be stolen by the middle men no doubt -
the traders. It will become like the stock exchange. Besides, the idea
is that rich countries can go on polluting as long as they pay off to
the poorer ones!
Hardly ecological now is it. Gues who really pays though - yes - you
and me.
Hardy
HardySpicer
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
> And the Indians are saying that the Himalayan glaciers have pretty much
> stopped shinking.
And which 'Indians' might that be?
Can you point me to the scientific study paper that led you to believe this?
Or are you talking about that one particular man when you say 'The Indians'.
The FACT is 90% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, including the
Himalayan.
The report 'Witnessing change: Glaciers in the Indian Himalayas' to which
this article refers and that I'm sure you, like me, must have read was
released only a few weeks ago.
The full report is a huge PDF and I can't be arsed wasting yet more time on
another classic denialist canard but this is one of dozens of references to
it:
And os the endless game of the anti-science conspiracy kooks inventing crap
and the scientists fefuting it goes on, and on, and on.....
"..South Asian countries including Bangladesh will face climate catastrophe
shortly as Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly, apprehended scientists of
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Birla Institute of Technology (BIT).
Launching a report yesterday titled 'Witnessing change: Glaciers in the
Indian Himalayas' they also said that small glaciers are melting quickly and
many of those are already vanished.
They said glaciers have been receding continuously and significantly.
"The Gangotri glacier has been receding since the last 'Little Ice Age',
which ended in the 19th century. The tributary glaciers have also shrunk and
some of them have even got separated from the main trunk of the glacier.
This fact is evident by systematic studies going on since 1935 on the
movement of the glacier snout, and by the presence of recessional features
such as the terminal and lateral moraines (GSI, 2001)," they said at the
congress of International Federation of Environmental Journalists (IFEJ) .
"In the past century, the retreat rate of the glacier had shown a rising
trend. It has been observed by glaciologists that the snout of the Gangotri
glacier has retreated by about two km in the last 100 years," said scientist
Dr Rajesh Kumar of BIT.
"The science of climate change is complex as it is not only about
temperature variations, but also the impact of local environmental factors;
non-climate stressors play an equally critical role. The ecologically
fragile Himalayan ecosystems harbour a diverse range of flora and fauna.
Moreover, a range of ecological services generated by the Himalayan
ecosystems support the well-being of communities in the mountains and
floodplains. Changes in these will result in immediate long-terms impacts
and requires development of appropriate adaptation responses," he added.
The report revealed that being more close to the Tropic of Cancer, the
Himalayan glaciers are receiving more heat than the Arctic and temperate
climate mountain glaciers, and they have become very sensitive to the rising
temperature or climate variability both at regional and global levels.
"Some of the studies carried out in the Indian Himalayas clearly point out
an increase in glacial melting. For instance, the Baspa basin of Himachal
Pradesh has shown an increase in the winter stream flow by 75 per cent as
compared to the rate in 1966. This is in tandem with the rise in average
winter temperatures in the area, thus illustrating the impacts of global
warming in the form of increased snow ablation, which in turn has augmented
the stream flow."
The study feared that glacial retreat could pose the most far-reaching
challenge in the Himalayan region. "The dynamics of monsoon are influenced
by Himalayan system and they act as a reservoir to sustaining agriculture,
providing freshwater and groundwater recharge, and is home to a unique
ecosystem with many endemic species."
"Adaptation to climate change, therefore, requires not just local action but
also trans-boundary cooperative arrangements. Future efforts in building the
resilience of the local community and the ecosystems should take into
account a concerted and integrated approach," it said.
Shirish Sinha of WWF said, "There is an urgent need by communities,
scientists and policymakers to take a closer look at the linkages between
scientific research, policy interventions and the larger understanding of
using resource conservation technologies and practices for promoting
societal benefits."
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:v6ydnTmiXZOu-YfW...@westnet.com.au...
> They said glaciers have been receding continuously and significantly.
And while I'm at it:
Here's a graph of the Global Glacier Mass Balance of the 180 odd 'key'
glaciers that are being continously monitored worldwide.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/glacemb.jpg
And here's another of the cumulative mass balance curves for the mean of all
glaciers and 30 'reference' glaciers from the WGMS
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif
I hope this helps to reduce your confusion on this issue.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> The Phantom Piper <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in news:fb0f8dd2-
> 6d78-4538-ab8...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://www.soulisfree.com/i
>
> According to Kaser et al ( 2004, Int'l J of Climatology) the shrinking of
> the Kilimanjaro glacer is not due to warming but the peculiar geography of
> the mountain and reduced moisture at mid-troposphere.
And here we go yet again.
According to a new study led by Professor Lonnie Thompson, from Ohio State
University and pubished in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences a couple of weeks ago the vanishing snow was "most likely due to
global warming" though they did add that: "..changes in cloudiness and
precipitation may have also played a smaller, less
important role, especially in recent decades.."
I can't find the original research papers online but below are two
reasonable summations of it from respected newspapers.
"...THE snows capping Mt Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, are shrinking
rapidly and could vanish altogether in 20 years, most likely due to global
warming, a US study said.
The ice sheet that capped Kilimanjaro in 1912 was 85 per cent smaller by
2007, and since 2000 the existing ice sheet has shrunk by 26 per cent, the
paleoclimatologists said.
The findings point to the rise in global temperatures as the most likely
cause of the ice loss.
Changes in cloudiness and precipitation may have also played a smaller, less
important role, especially in recent decades, they added.
"This is the first time researchers have calculated the volume of ice lost
from the mountain's ice fields,'' study co-author Lonnie Thompson said.
Mr Thompson is the professor of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University.
"If you look at the percentage of volume lost since 2000 versus the
percentage of area lost as the ice fields shrink, the numbers are very
close,'' he said in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
While the yearly loss of the mountain glaciers was most apparent from the
retreat of their margins, Mr Thompson said an equally troubling effect was
the thinning of the ice fields from the surface.
The summits of both the Northern and Southern Ice Fields atop Kilimanjaro
have thinned by 1.9m) and 5.1m respectively.
The smaller Furtwangler Glacier, which was melting and water-saturated in
2000 when it was drilled, has thinned as much as 50 per cent between 2000
and 2009.
"It has lost half of its thickness,'' Mr Thompson said. "In the future,
there will be a year when Furtwangler is present and by the next year, it
will have disappeared.
"The whole thing will be gone.''
The scientists said they found no evidence of sustained melting anywhere
else in the ice core samples they extracted, which date back 11,700 years.
They said their findings show that current climate conditions over Mt
Kilimanjaro were unique over the last 11 millennia...."
_______________________________________________
Just for a bit of balance here's another reference to the same report from a
Tanzanian source which includes some extra detail:
"...It is not -- as some climate experts had been saying -- the result of
local issues such as the cutting down of forests and greater agricultural
production at the base of the mountain.
Scientists now believe that all the snow at the top of the mountain will be
gone within two decades.
They say that snow at the top of Mount Kenya could also be about to
disappear.
The report says that since 1912, 85 per cent of Mount Kilimanajro's glacier
has disappeared and that 26 per cent has gone since 2000 alone.
The primary cause of the melting is rising global temperatures, although
scientists acknowledge that changes in cloudiness and snowfall may also play
a role.
They also point out that even periods of intense drought, including one
which lasted 300 years, did not cause the present degree of melting.
The study is based primarily on photographs taken over the past 100 years.
They show that the 12 sq km of ice coverage in 1912 has been reduced to less
than two square kilometres by 2007.
However, the scientists have also drilled down to the rock beneath the ice
and extracted samples showing the pattern of freezing and melting over the
past 12,000 years.
This proved that the most extensive melting had taken place in the past 40
years.
Scientists say that the melting of Mount Kilimanjaro is part of a trend of
glacial retreat across Africa.
They add that melting is also occurring on Mount Kenya and in the Rwenzori
mountains on the western side of Uganda.
The melting could be devastating for local people and wildlife, which depend
on its runoff waters.
Britain's Met Office has predicted that glacial retreats worldwide could
lead to a 20 per cent fall in global agricultural productivity.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200911090364.html
So I hope that helps to reduce another little bit of confusion for you
Seimi.
Scotty
wrote:
No, temporary administrative leave while the Uni investigates
Scotty
wrote:
>The Phantom Piper <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in news:fb0f8dd2-
>6d78-4538-ab8...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://www.soulisfree.com/i
>
>According to Kaser et al ( 2004, Int�l J of Climatology) the shrinking of
>the Kilimanjaro glacer is not due to warming but the peculiar geography of
>the mountain and reduced moisture at mid-troposphere.
Those pictures often get trotted out, the main cause, among others, is
de-forestation around the base of the mountain and resultant loss of
moisture in the air. The tribe that had illegally settled in the rain
forest have been moved and the forest is in the process of re-habilitation.
The temperature is unchanged...
Scotty
<brianlo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 1:10�am, "S�im� mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
>> Saint S�im� mac Liam
>> Carriagemaker to the �court of Queen Maeve
>> Prophet of The Great Tagger
>> Canonized December '99- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>From The Times December 5, 2009
>
>Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate dataBen Webster,
>Environment Editor
Here is the URL for that page:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
I especially liked this one from the Comments:
"Since Gordon Brown has entered the fray and started calling the sceptics
of the 'climate change' paranoia 'flat- earthers' then we know the
flat-earthers are winning the argument.
Nice one Gordon - always a winner!"
It's worth reading some of the others....
Scotty
wrote:
>Bryn Fraser <brianlo...@googlemail.com> wrote in
This, attributed to,
Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
Can we say "natural variability" ?
La N
> much stopped shinking.
And in breaking news in Canada (and world wide), polars bears are resorting
to cannibalism due to climate change
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/05/2762943.htm?section=justin
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/03/mb-polar-bear-cannibalism-churchill-manitoba.html
- nilita
Scotty
>
>"S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
>
>> And the Indians are saying that the Himalayan glaciers have pretty much
>> stopped shinking.
>
>And which 'Indians' might that be?
>
>Can you point me to the scientific study paper that led you to believe this?
>Or are you talking about that one particular man when you say 'The Indians'.
>The FACT is 90% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, including the
>Himalayan.
>
>The report 'Witnessing change: Glaciers in the Indian Himalayas' to which
>this article refers and that I'm sure you, like me, must have read was
>released only a few weeks ago.
>The full report is a huge PDF and I can't be arsed wasting yet more time on
>another classic denialist canard but this is one of dozens of references to
>it:
No it isn't a huge file, < 3meg and yes I can be arsed to actually read it
and here is a snippet from it:
"The initial results from our field study indicate that
the Himalayan glaciers are retreating, but at a
reduced rate and the larger glaciers like Gangotri
are unlikely to disappear in near future"
If they stopped melting the bastards will die of thirst, enjoy the
interglacial while it lasts...
<snipped>
HardySpicer
> Séimí mac Liam wrote:
> > Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>
> > And the Indians are saying that the Himalayan glaciers have pretty
> > much stopped shinking.
>
> And in breaking news in Canada (and world wide), polars bears are resorting
> to cannibalism due to climate change
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/05/2762943.htm?section=justin
>
>
> - nilita
What everybody - both camps agree on is that the temp has not changed
this century so far.(only last century)
That being the case - why is the ice still melting??
I reckon they make it up as they go along...
Hardy
Scotty
wrote:
I don't have any direct information here but we do know that the bear
population has increased tremendously since they became protected, could it
be over population?
Anyway, the Inuits don't think it's unusual:
"However, an Inuit leader in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut said the incidents are
non-events and that it's wrong to connect the bear's behaviour with
starvation.
"It makes the south - southern people - look so ignorant," said Kivalliq
Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak.
"A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry
it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it's a normal
normal occurrence," Kusugak said.
Kusugak admitted some communities are having polar bear problems because
warmer than average temperatures means sea ice hasn't yet formed properly.
But he disagrees that their numbers are dwindling or that polar bears are
in other danger because of climate change".
La N
I agree with you and the Inuit on this one WRT polar bears. I was amazed at
how it made worldwide news.
However, when it comes to climate change in general, the Inuit have been
very forthcoming in recent years about how climate change has adversely
affected their lifestyle.
- nilita
S�im� mac Liam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-
melting or for those too ignorant to know how to deal with line wrap:
http://tinyurl.com/y9kkczz
From this last-
The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or so
Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change.
It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in the Asia
chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's)
2007 Working Group II report, which claims that Himalayan glaciers �are
receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present
rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and
perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current
rate.� Evidently, the bogus reporting was based on measurements from only
a handful of glaciers.
Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings from
half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing satellite
data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often higher than
5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of glaciers, two
particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-kilometer-long
Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the
glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a
total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to
about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been
�practically at a standstill,� according to Raina's report.
The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more stable.
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as
50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that the glacier has
�not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.� These
conclusions were based in part on field measurements by ecologist Kireet
Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and
Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about Greenland's ice cap,
it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a bit premature.
According to a report in the journal Science, �several Western experts
who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
analysis�even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.� The
�extremely provocative� findings �are consistent with what I have learned
independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University
of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the
border of India and Pakistan, have �stabilized or undergone an aggressive
advance,� he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael
Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.
Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed
five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence
�challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are �disappearing�
quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt. �There is no evidence
to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the
past 30 years than the previous 60 years.�
Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support
of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John
�Jack� Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya
assessment got it �horribly wrong.� The University of Nebraska researcher
adds, �They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data.�
The IPCC also erred in its forecast of the impact of glacier melting on
water supply, claims Donald Alford, a Montana-based hydrologist who
recently completed a water study for the World Bank. One of the dire
predictions that the IPCC report made was for water shortages in the
region. �Our data indicate the Ganges results primarily from monsoon
rainfall, and until the monsoon fails completely, there will be a Ganges
river, very similar to the present river.� Glacier melt contributes only
3% to 4% of the Ganges's annual flow, says Kireet Kumar. Another piece of
climate catastrophist propaganda debunked.
Even when faced with data showing the errors in their work, the IPCC
seems incapable of admitting they were wrong. Typically, Murari Lal,
chair of the Climate, Energy and Sustainable Development Analysis Centre
in New Delhi and coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report's Asia
chapter, rejects the notion that IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan
glaciers. Even more petulantly, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accused
the Indian environment ministry of �arrogance� for its report claiming
there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk the Himalayan
glaciers. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists the truth is
out, the glaciers of the Himalayas remain safely frozen and won't be
disappearing anytime soon.
YMMV
Scotty
wrote:
>> I'm surprised at you falling for yet more of this crap. More noise for the
>> machine. I hope there *are* prosecutions - for libel and defamation of
>> character.
>In fact the prof at the centre of this scandal has already stood down.
Can anybody say, "circular firing squad"?
Mann throws Jones under the bus
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/mann-throws-jones-under-the-bus/
Al "Nobel Prize" Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture, leaves ticket holders
in a lurch
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/
Rats abandoning the ship?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
For someone who claims to like science you really allow yourself to be
played for a fool by the denialist shills Scotty.
Below is the most recent SCIENCE that you love so much.
I guess you missed it in my reply to Seimi or you wouldn't have continued to
reel out that same old tired debunked dittohead crap - again.
According to a new 20009 study led by Professor Lonnie Thompson, from Ohio
State
University and pubished in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences a couple of weeks ago the vanishing snow was "most likely due to
global warming" though they did add that: "..changes in cloudiness and
precipitation may have also played a smaller, less
important role, especially in recent decades.."
I think the clincher is that exactly the same thing is happening to other
nearby mountain snowfields where the deforestation hasn't taken place.
It obviously suggests there is a single root cause. It's not rocket science.
"...Scientists say that the melting of Mount Kilimanjaro is part of a trend
of
glacial retreat across Africa.
They add that melting is also occurring on Mount Kenya and in the Rwenzori
mountains on the western side of Uganda...."
------------------------------------------------------
Incidentily, it's also happenining at similar latitudes in other parts of
the world and is already causing huge problems in South America too:
"....Fears are growing for the future of water supplies in one of Latin
America's fastest-growing urban areas - Bolivia's sprawling city of La Paz
and its neighbour El Alto.
Scientists monitoring the glaciers high in the Andes mountains - a key
source of water - say the ice is showing signs of shrinking faster than
previously forecast..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394324.stm
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
http://allafrica.com/stories/200911090364.html
So I hope that this scientific report helps remove any lingering doubts for
you too ad that you will now cease posting your denialist nonsense in a
grown-up ng.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> news:opudnduUoORY-ofW...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>> news:v6ydnTmiXZOu-YfW...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>> They said glaciers have been receding continuously and significantly.
>>
>> And while I'm at it:
>>
>> Here's a graph of the Global Glacier Mass Balance of the 180 odd 'key'
>> glaciers that are being continously monitored worldwide.
>> http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/glacemb.jpg
>>
>> And here's another of the cumulative mass balance curves for the mean
>> of all glaciers and 30 'reference' glaciers from the WGMS
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif
>>
>>
>> I hope this helps to reduce your confusion on this issue.
>>
>>
> From this last-
> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or so
> Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change.
> It's not true, Raina says.
Yes, yes I've read all that tosh weeks ago. He's become a laughing stock to
say the least and has been roundly criticised by the entire scientific
community, including the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri who accused this
dodgy politician and his ministry of 'arrogance' for taking the denalist
position. It absolutely reeks of goverment corruption if you read further
into it as I did weeks ago. . The Indian government are not exactly
reknowned for their integrity after all and this is the only voice
contradictig the science. You can't get a much more authorative than the
IPCC chairman.
So what is it about this politician's opinion that you find SO impressive
and that convinces you that he alone is right and the rest of the scientific
community is wrong?
Why do you dismiss the work of hundreds of climatologists as wrong but
accept one unsubstantiated speech from a politician that contradicts every
other genuine authority in the world.? Have you seen his research papers ont
he subject? Damned if I could find them
Couldn't be that your stance is purely political rather than science-based
could it?
For me - I'll stick the the science from the IPCC and the thousands of
climatoligists from all over the world. 96.2% of them are in agreement that
the Earth is warming and that human activity is mainly to blame. I havn't
seen any evidence that leads me to doubt their findings, particularly as
almost every prediction has been correct so far.
I've never trusted Indian politicians - leastways not to the level of the
extraordianry faith you seem to place in this ex-geologist to know better
than the climate researchers.
His spurious claim that 'only a handfull' of glaciers have been studied is
particularly absurd and a gross insult to the dedicated teams of
international scientists who have spent years on the subject.
Here's a brief summary of some of the workers in the Himilayan glaciers:
"...The WWF's India, Nepal and China chapters some time back carried out a
massive study "Glaciers, glacier retreat and its impact' on freshwater as a
major issue, not just in the national context but also at a regional and
trans-boundary level.
New data collected by scientists at the Jawaharlal Nehru University has
shown that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating faster than anywhere
else in the world. Together with those on the neighbouring Tibetan mountain
plateau, the Himalayan glaciers make up the largest body of ice outside the
Polar regions.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)'s scientist, professor Syed
Hasnain, in a recent study claimed that "All the glaciers in the middle
Himalayas are retreating, and they could disappear from the central and
eastern Himalayas by 2035."
As the chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI)
working group on Himalayan Glaciology, Hasnain was then quoted by The New
Scientist in the June 5, 1999, issue, in which also he had warned that "most
of the glaciers in the Himalayan region will vanish within 40 years as a
result of global warming"?. The article also predicted that freshwater flow
in rivers across South Asia would "eventually diminish, resulting in
widespread water shortages."?
The giant Gangotri glacier supplies 70 per cent of the Ganga flow during the
dry season. A study carried out by the India's Department of Science and
Technology has found the Gangotri glacier shrinking at a pace of 17 m a year
due to global warming and climate change. Its mammoth neighbour Pindari
glacier is also reportedly melting at a speed of about 9.5 m a year. The
Gangotri glacier is the outlet of one of the largest glacier systems in the
Himalayas, and the source of the Bhagirathi, one of the major tributaries of
the Ganga..."
So all the hundreds of researchers from various countries and organisations
who have been carrying out these studies for years are simply lying and the
Indian politician is telling the truth.
: )))
Sorry - but it's simply laughable. As are all of the denialists increasingly
desperate canards.
S�im� mac Liam
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-
kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed/1
This is an article in American Scientist from 2007, co-authored by
Phillip W. Mote, Georg Kaser. An update and expansion of the 2004 paper
from Kaser, et al which I cited earlier.
from page one:
<quote>
Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behavior of the
glaciers and plateau ice on Africa's Kilimanjaro massif, just 3 degrees
south of the equator, and to a lesser extent other tropical glaciers. The
disappearing ice cap of the "shining mountain," which gets a starring
role in the movie, is not an appropriate poster child for global climate
change. Rather, extensive field work on tropical glaciers over the past
20 years by one of us (Kaser) reveals a more nuanced and interesting
story. Kilimanjaro, a trio of volcanic cones that penetrate high into the
cold upper troposphere, has gained and lost ice through processes that
bear only indirect connections, if any, to recent trends in global
climate.
</quote>
again from page 5:
<quote>
When pieced together, these disparate lines of evidence do not suggest
that any warming at Kilimanjaro's summit has been large enough to explain
the disappearance of most of its ice, either during the whole 20th
century or during the best-measured period, the last 25 years.
</quote>
You may want to read the entire article. It begins on the linked page
and runs eight pages.
La N
>
> Sorry - but it's simply laughable. As are all of the denialists
> increasingly desperate canards.
I'm guessing it would be *cheaper* if everybody just threw in the towel and
became denialists. *Plus* we could have those annual Christmas tree burns
at the beach again!
- nilita
Adam Whyte-Settlar
And again while I'm at it.
Here's a summary of the state of the world's glaciers overall.
From the World Glacier Monitoring Service. - the world's formost authority.
"..In 2005 there were 442 glaciers examined, 26 advancing, 18 stationary and
398 retreating. 90% of worldwide glaciers are retreating.
In 2005, for the first time ever, no observed Swiss glaciers advanced.
Of the 26 advancing glaciers, 15 were in New Zealand.
Overall there has been a substantial volume loss of 11% of New Zealand
glaciers from 1975-2005, but the number of advancing glacier is still
significant..."
It's complicated - some glaciers will actually temporarly advance even given
warmer temperatures for example - and I can understand why a few advancing
glaciers might confuse some people but the trend overall is unmistakable.
This graph is simple to understand
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_TAR_glaciers.gif
It shows that some glaciers in the Himilayas did indeed temporarily advance
in the 70's but again - overall the global trend is dramatic and
unmistakable.
The Phantom Piper
[Before we begin: I'm going to address you
as though you were a human being and not
some sort of Gollum-like Creature because
this _is_ the post of a Human Being - and
in fact I can't really say I disagree with any
part of it *or* it's delivery. Whatever meds
you were on/not-on _while posting this_, it
is a winning combination and I fervently hope
that you stick with it. Kudos. Praise. And
here's why]:
> Look, whatever the truth of the matter - and I admit it
> could go either way, there is no doubt that the main
> thing that has suffered is the publics faith in Science.
You are absolutely correct and truer words were almost
never spoken.
Here in the Youweresay, the even has been likened to
the O.J. Simpson controversy: the man was _clearly_
Guilty of the crime, and the Police had an *extremely*
good case against him - if only they hadn't decided to
botch it by fiddling with the evidence.
The common comedic line was, "The LAPD: blew the
job trying to Frame a Guilty Man..."
The _only_ caveat I would have reagarding your statement
above is that "The Public" are easily swayed by utter shite
and nonsense - so that a certain percentage think that the
Sun orbits the Earth, the Moon Landings were a Hoax, you
can make Radioactive Milk safe by Boiling It, and Elvis is
alive and well and secretly helping the Jews run the world.
So *fuck* The Public! What's important here is that these
twits - with their *1%* worth of Input globally, have caused
far more Chatter and confusion than the other _99%_ of
responsible scientists who agree on Global Climate Change
and support Kyoto, etc., can overcome with their quiet and
steady research.
"If it Bleeds, it Leads" is the mantra for the Press, and
*that's* why this relative fluke is causing a disproportionate
amount of harm.
> If people can go around fiddling results and getting away
> with it then there is no hope. Personally I think we do need
> to do something about polution, and think carefully about
> renewable energy where possible.
Hardy, I'm going to tell you a thing: when I was still an
Undergraduate, I took a graduate course in meteorology
set for Bachelor's Candidates. (I had an 'in' through the
Astronomy department; it needed special clearance from
the provost [Pro-Vice-Chancellor to you].) The thesis I
turned in (no degree possible, but extra credits applicable
within the Sciences Division) was on Inadvertent Man-Made
Global Climate Change. The emphasis on the paper was
Ozone-Layer Depletion via chlorofluorocarbons, but there
was a section on Greenhouse Gas emissions focussing
on hydrocarbons from jet aircraft and automobiles as well.
The year was _1975_.
Do you get that? Do you understand the significance
of it? There was barely any data to work with; I had to
rely upon French studies in the Caribbean and Africa,
with some corollaries from the US which supported them
as my primary sources of raw data.
The results made me a lifelong Believer in Man-Caused
Global Climate Change, and I've been arguing the position
ever since.
I saw the evolution into the Popular Culture with Al Gore's
books, and followed the debate and the data round the
globe for many years, only beginning to lose focus around
2004 or so. (Old, getting older, other fish to fry.)
Now I know you come from the denialist side. And that's
fine: you're entitled to believe any crap you like, and to
shout it from as many mountaintops as you can find. But
I'd like you to consider this: if *I'm* wrong, then we Spend
a bit too much on Useless Things - _but_ - if *you're* the
ones who're wrong, the we all Die...
It's that simple really: one side is Wrong; if it's the Warmers,
and we spend the money, then the money was misspent: oh
well... On the other hand, if it's the Deniers who are Wrong,
and we _don't_ spend the money, then we are ALL Royally
*SCREWED*...
Ands remember, tiny-percentage-of-fudgers or not, 99% of
scientists in the field Worldwide *still* agree, that it's Real,
and that it *is* happening.
So place your bets - just make sure you _Bet Wisely_...
Having A Reasonable Conversation,
The Phantom Piper
S�im� mac Liam
5398-4191-877...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> Having A Reasonable Conversation,
>
Now if you could just convince Graham to do the same.
HardySpicer
wrote:
I'm not sure that's the argument though. The problem is - given that
the earth is warming (let's say it is) - then are humans the cause?
I'm not at all sure that has been established. I'm not against
reducing polution by any means - good thing to do at any time. Neither
am Ian oil lobbiest - we will have to learn to live with oil
eventually. I just don't think they have established the cause. It
could be man - but it could equally be (for example) sunspot activity.
The trouble is (looking at the rabble demonstrating yesterday in
London and elsewhere) that the Science goes out the window. We only
hear one side of the argument (till now). It's gobe beyond Science -
it is a religion in all but name. if you speak out you get ostracised
by the media. Prof David Belamy is one example of this happening
though there are many more. I also find it amazing that when something
like this happens the rabble all become instant scientists! why?
Because they have a hidden agenda that goes way beyond climate change.
They are anti rich countries in general and this proposed solution
suits their ideals to the ground. Let's rob the countries who design
and shape our modern world and send the money to a bunch of African
wasters! That's what it is about. Most of the money will end up in the
hands of corrupt African and South american governments pockets - and
middle men. Life will go on as normal. we will pay. now the general
rabble you see in London and Glasgow don't care since most of them are
either on the dole or are celebrities with plenty dosh in any case!
Hardy
The Phantom Piper
>
> The problem is - given that the earth is warming
> (let's say it is) - then are humans the cause?
For me the evidence from the Ice Cores alone
is overwhelming. But here we're going to have
to agree to disagree - because here is where
*your* "religion" parts ways with what you call
*my* "religion."
So let's scrap that (since you lot wouldn't be
convinced by the science _until_ the coastal
cities were actually beginning to submerge),
and just get to the Brass Tacks, shall we?
(That's what Conservatives always tout, is it
not - Pragmatism; Cutting To The Chase?)
And here's where The Chase leads us:
If you are right and we spend the Money for
no good reason, then we are out the Money.
If we are right and we *don't* spend the money,
then we are out the _Lives_.
Now, I realise that Money is more important
to most Conservatives than Human Life, but
let's just assume for a moment that most fowk
_AREN'T SO F*ING EVIL_, and try to see the
logical reasoning here: Money on the one hand
vs. Lives on the other; Money vs. Lives - hmmm,
I wonder which is more important? I wonder
which Gamble I'd like to take: which I'd rather
see _wasted_... Will it be the Lives? Or the
precious, precious Money? Oh dear, so hard
to choose...
> We only hear one side of the argument (till now).
That's right: until relatively recently (the last 20+
years or so), we have only heard the Conservative
side of the argument; and now that the Science
refutes that, we are *still* hearing the denialists
just as loudly as ever, driven by Corporations and
Industry, who'd rather save the Money than the
Lives.
> It's gobe beyond Science - it is a religion in all
> but name.
"For the love of Money is the root of all Evil."
"Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
> if you speak out you get ostracised by the media.
> Prof David Belamy is one example of this happening
> though there are many more.
Look: I haven't forgotten Immanuel Velikovsky;
but I haven't forgotten Trofim Lysenko or Fred
Hoyle either! For every Wronged Genius there
are ten Theodorics Of York who are just plain
_wrong_. And the telling point is that *most*
of the <1% of scientists in the field who claim
there is no AGW are employed by industries
and corporations with an axe to grind. "Honour
dies where Interest lies."
> Because they have a hidden agenda that goes way
> beyond climate change. They are anti rich countries
> in general and this proposed solution suits their ideals
> to the ground. Let's rob the countries who design and
> shape our modern world and send the money to a
> bunch of African wasters!
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how racist
and mean that sounds? Do you truly not realise
how it is that people of good will around the world
abhor such Social Darwinism?
> That's what it is about. Most of the money will
> end up in the hands of corrupt African and South
> american governments pockets - and middle men.
> Life will go on as normal. we will pay. now the
> general rabble you see in London and Glasgow
> don't care since most of them are either on the
> dole or are celebrities with plenty dosh in any case!
And so we see how swiftly things get right down
to the Basics: Conservative Ideology at its worst;
the Darkies and the 'Elites' are draining away the
precious Money from the Real People Like Us...
How sad.
We cannot agree on this point; there is no
Conspiracy on the Left; there is no Agenda
except to preserve Lives.
Lives are worth more than Money. *ALL* Lives,
whether they are those of the Wogs you despise
or those of the Corporate Fat Cats paying your
<1% of Science Shills to spin and deny. The only
thing we can agree upon is that fudging the data
is a Bad Thing for any proponents on the Left to
do. I know why they did it, of course: if you're, say,
an Economist, trying to warn people of impending
Doom due to a nasty trend in Financial Products,
and you find yourself in a minor Up Trend in the
economy, it doesn't look good in the Graphs for to
the people you're trying to warn. You realise that
it's just a minor bump in a Long Term Down Trend,
but you also know that the people who are driving
the Impending Doom will seize the momentary data
and claim that All Is Well. And so you fudge the
data; you exclude a few things and massage some
others, knowing that in the long run your theory will
be vindicated. But it is _never_ a good idea; upon
this, at least, we can agree.
From The Left,
The Phantom Piper
Scotty
wrote:
>Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
Amen to that and naked dancing around the fire.
>- nilita
Nil, I have never denied global warming, it is a fact and it has been
continuing for the last 300 years at least. That is not what the argument
is about.
Everybody's Crap Detector (TM) went on high alert in the mid '90s when
Michael Mann (one of the central figures in the latest revelations) was
publicly outed for publishing manipulated data and an analysis program that
fraudulently and deliberately showed an alarming rise in temp, the
notorious, so called "hokey stick" (um, that's a typo but I'll stick with
it). That is what started this whole furore and created an entire industry
that MM et al calls "Climate Deniers". The name calling, denialist, flat
eathers etc are the best "defence" that the fraudsters have offered.
And now we have this latest revelation, a whistle blower has published
damning evidence that the fraud, deception, manipulation and other dirty
tricks is continuing. Personally, I object to the Crap Science, lack of
ethics and the alarmist forecasts of great catastrophe in 30 years time,
that can't be supported by the science but always wrapped in weasel words
when the latest evidence shows that the threat is declining.
The most egregious behavior recently revealed is that they have
deliberately obscured the recent (10 year) decline in global temp. that
would reduce the probability of future catastrophe Cry wolf and the Big
lie, come to mind.
And, if you can't sleep because of that, then here is another reason, and
wipe that smug look off your face :-)
Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to
whaling. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal
in Copenhagen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong".
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Scotty
So what! The temperature HAS been climbing, we ARE living in an
inter-glacial period. The sea-level IS rising 3mm per year.
But is it because of human produced CO2 and SUVs? Can humans turn on and
turn off an Inter-glacial period? Not even Dog can do that, at least I
haven't seen the bolt of lightning.
Interestingly, the most rapid glacial retreat started in approx 1900 just
as Henry Ford invented the production line to mass produce cars, therefore
the cause must be due to SUVs? Electric cars, anybody? Every time you plug
your vehicle into the grid, someone at the power station has to throw
another lump of coal (or barrel of oil) onto the fire... Unfortunately, ALL
the alternatives are intermittent except Uranium which has zero carbon and
we already know how to do it.
La N
> >
> And, if you can't sleep because of that, then here is another reason,
> and wipe that smug look off your face :-)
>
> Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to
> whaling. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to
> a deal in Copenhagen.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal
Oh, I already know about that. I don't have a problem criticizing my own
country (especially since we have a Conservative government ..;). We also
have a history of treating our First Nations people like crap.
But, to tell the truth, the global warming issue is one of those things that
I'm not terribly passionate about. I will sometimes play Devil's Advocate
to see if I can tease out some more information and rationale, but
oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
been more vigilant WRT global warming.
- nilita
HardySpicer
wrote:
Well let us soppose that you are right and I am wrong. What happens
next? The new system is introduced whereby rich countries can go on
polluting as much as they like and they pay credits to poorer
countries. Doesn't seem right does it? So the polluting goes on and we
are no better off. Yes I expect they are supposedto plant a few trees
in deepest bonga bonga land to compensate but in reality a few war
lords will pocket the money for arms and the poor which you seem to be
concerned with - will still be poor. I was brought up being poor and
know what it is about, not third world poor of course but poor.
The capatilist society has lots of faults and I hate it - however, to
this date nobody has come up with anything better that actually works.
That's your problem.
Hardy
HardySpicer
> Scotty wrote:
>
> > And, if you can't sleep because of that, then here is another reason,
> > and wipe that smug look off your face :-)
>
> > Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to
> > whaling. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to
> > a deal in Copenhagen.
>
> Oh, I already know about that. I don't have a problem criticizing my own
> country (especially since we have a Conservative government ..;). We also
> have a history of treating our First Nations people like crap.
>
> But, to tell the truth, the global warming issue is one of those things that
> I'm not terribly passionate about. I will sometimes play Devil's Advocate
> to see if I can tease out some more information and rationale, but
> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>
> - nilita
Yes but you miss the point. If you are concerned about global warming
then you HAVE to go nuclear. There is at this time simply no
alternative unless you wish to go back to living in caves or like the
Amish at the very least. Yes I am all for wind.Solar fart power or
anything that works but it simply isn't enough on its own for the
majority of us who live in cities. We would need to go back to the way
things were some 1000 years ago - small settlements. Wouldn't the
greenies love that!
Hardy
HardySpicer
> "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:Xns9CD88F...@74.209.136.90...
>
Most of the people who are crying loudest are not climate Scientists.
In fact many of them are so-called denialists. It is the "secondary"
scientists who are crying out.
The conservationalists of this world are concerned that species are
dying out and global warming is a catch-all for everything. They may
be right in many cases but I think it is far too simplistic to say
that every problem in the world is due to global warming! Ironically,
when you and the rest of us get our heating bills in a few years
(which will have certainly doubled), it will be the very poor people
who suffer most, the ones that the socialists are supposedly concerned
about and supposed to be protecting. Personally I believe socialists
don't give a shit about their own kind, they only like to rant and
rave about ideology and who is right and wrong. Let us wait until the
old folks start dying due to lack of heating. Oh, I forgot, the state
is supposed to pay for that of course. then it's all down to the few
people that actually work for a living.
Hardy
Scotty
wrote:
>Scotty wrote:
Good question and Hardy has given a good answer.
IMHO, we humans are arrogant and overrate our importance and influence
compared to the power of Nature.
Just one example. Stable full grown rain forests are not carbon sinks We
should cut down the entire Amazon and replant it, only growing trees use
carbon. Of course we would also have to dig holes and bury the old trees to
capture the carbon. I doubt that there are enough people on this earth to
do that, shows our insignificance. Clearly, I think that our attempts at
prevention are as effective as farting against thunder. Especially since
the boffins seem to think that CO2 is the cause when I am sure it isn't.
Most importantly, numerous studies have shown that mitigation of the
effects of global warming if it happens is both cheaper and has better
outcomes than prevention assuming that the present proposals can/will
prevent it.
Scotty
wrote:
>On Dec 6, 4:59�pm, The Phantom Piper <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2:18�am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
snipped only for reasons of bandwidth.
>> The common comedic line was, "The LAPD: blew the
>> job trying to Frame a Guilty Man..."
Not an equivalence at all. In this case they are fiddling with the data to
incriminate an innocent, _anthropogenic_ CO2 by hiding the decline in temp
while the levels of CO2 are still increasing. It just doesn't compute. You
cannot square that circle without recognising that there is a more
significant forcing agent but while these a-holes are preoccupied with CO2
and fiddling the figures to "prove" their position, a log goes floating by.
This alone is sufficient evidence that their thesis is wrong. one of them,
in the released emails even says, "it is aggravating that we can't explain
the decline" and yet they are confidently making forecasts 100 years into
the future.
And don't forget the "activists" resorting to there usual tactics of
demonizing carbon by trying to get CO2 declared a pollutant when we know it
is a naturally occurring fertilizer and hiding the decline. Soooo
predictable, Somebody had to say, "the kings got no clothes".
Bah! Humbug.
>> So *fuck* The Public! �What's important here is that these
>> twits - with their *1%* worth of Input globally, have caused
>> far more Chatter and confusion
The CRU has caused the confusion by fraudulently hiding the decline while
levels of CO2 are increasing. How do you compute that?
Fortunately 1% of "twits" were not taken in. Thank dog that a whistle
blower couldn't stand the skullduggery and blew the a-holes out the water.
>> than the other _99%_ of
>> responsible scientists who agree on Global Climate Change
>> and support Kyoto, etc., can overcome with their quiet and
>> steady research.
They only achieved 99% (?) consensus by bullying magazines to reject any
dissenting view, getting editors *fired* and causing almost the entire
editorial board of another to resign in disgust at their tactics.
>> It's that simple really: one side is Wrong; if it's the Warmers,
>> and we spend the money, then the money was misspent: oh
>> well... �On the other hand, if it's the Deniers who are Wrong,
>> and we _don't_ spend the money, then we are ALL Royally
>> *SCREWED*...
So you're quite happy to have a bunch of frauds gamble with your money when
they are setting the odds?
>> Ands remember, tiny-percentage-of-fudgers or not, 99% of
>> scientists in the field Worldwide *still* agree, that it's Real,
>> and that it *is* happening.
And?
>> So place your bets - just make sure you _Bet Wisely_...
See above.
>> Having A Reasonable Conversation,
>>
>> The Phantom Piper
>
>I'm not sure that's the argument though. The problem is - given that
>the earth is warming (let's say it is) - then are humans the cause?
>I'm not at all sure that has been established. I'm not against
>reducing polution by any means - good thing to do at any time. Neither
>am Ian oil lobbiest - we will have to learn to live with oil
>eventually. I just don't think they have established the cause. It
>could be man - but it could equally be (for example) sunspot activity.
>The trouble is (looking at the rabble demonstrating yesterday in
>London and elsewhere) that the Science goes out the window. We only
>hear one side of the argument (till now). It's gone beyond Science -
Scotty
<ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 6, 1:35�am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is - given that the earth is warming
>> (let's say it is) �- then are humans the cause?
>
>For me the evidence from the Ice Cores alone
>is overwhelming. But here we're going to have
>to agree to disagree - because here is where
>*your* "religion" parts ways with what you call
>*my* "religion."
If you actually knew anything about the ice cores you would know that the
co2 levels increase approx 300 years AFTER the temp increases, therefore
highly unlikely to be the cause of the warming! And guess how long ago our
temp started increasing, yes, 300 hundred years. Can't even add one and one
can you or two dots in a two dot puzzle?
Yes, the evidence from the ice cores is overwhelming!
Now go to Wiki and get to square one. And unlike the CRU the Russians have
released the full record!
The rest of your pompous, dramatic, self promoting rhetoric deleted
Idiot.
Cory Bhreckan
> "Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:17skh5dgg7lg0ulb5...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Dec 2009 10:12:10 GMT, "S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Phantom Piper <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in news:fb0f8dd2-
>>> 6d78-4538-ab8...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.soulisfree.com/i
>>> According to Kaser et al ( 2004, Int'l J of Climatology) the shrinking of
>>> the Kilimanjaro glacer is not due to warming but the peculiar geography of
>>> the mountain and reduced moisture at mid-troposphere.
>> Those pictures often get trotted out, the main cause, among others, is
>> de-forestation around the base of the mountain and resultant loss of
>> moisture in the air. The tribe that had illegally settled in the rain
>> forest have been moved and the forest is in the process of re-habilitation
>
>
> For someone who claims to like science you really allow yourself to be
> played for a fool by the denialist shills Scotty.
>
Yabbut, the Climategate e-mail said that they were doing a 'trick' to
'hide the decline'.
Checkmate
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Cory Bhreckan
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:39:14 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scotty wrote:
>>> And, if you can't sleep because of that, then here is another reason,
>>> and wipe that smug look off your face :-)
>>>
>>> Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to
>>> whaling. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to
>>> a deal in Copenhagen.
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal
>> Oh, I already know about that. I don't have a problem criticizing my own
>> country (especially since we have a Conservative government ..;). We also
>> have a history of treating our First Nations people like crap.
>>
>> But, to tell the truth, the global warming issue is one of those things that
>> I'm not terribly passionate about. I will sometimes play Devil's Advocate
>> to see if I can tease out some more information and rationale, but
>> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
>> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
>> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>>
>> - nilita
> Good question and Hardy has given a good answer.
> IMHO, we humans are arrogant and overrate our importance and influence
> compared to the power of Nature.
Whens the last time you went down to a major river and had a nice long
drink from it? I'll give you $20 US if you come come to Washington D.C.
and drink a glass full of water straight out of the Potomac (that should
cover the your deductible for the emergency room visit). Do you also
doubt that we have over fished many species of important food fish to
the point of commercial extinction? Speaking of extinction, whens the
last time you saw a Passenger Pigeon, at one time the most common bird
in North America? Do you also deny the existence of acid rain? How about
the high levels of mercury now present in the flesh of apex level
predatory fish world wide (now almost fished out). You think that eating
sashimi is healthy now? Chelation therapy is getting hip these days.
I've been watching this little exchange between you and Bruce with some
amusement but this crap about how arrogant it is to think we can
influence nature is, well, a load of crap.
La N
Dude. That's good. Scotty, take *that*!
- nilita
Jeffrey Hamilton
"In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets
to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had
ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by
6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%."
Well, that's the Conservatives for you. They are always in the pocket of
big-business, always to the detriment of Canada and now possibly the
_world_, oh well.
cheers.....Jeff
cheers.....Jeff
The Phantom Piper
>
> Well let us soppose that you are right and I am wrong. What
> happens next? The new system is introduced whereby rich
> countries can go on polluting as much as they like and they
> pay credits to poorer countries. Doesn't seem right does it?
> So the polluting goes on and we are no better off.
I'm going to surprise you here by Agreeing with you again
(somewhat), in that the baroque schemes put forth to-date
for Caron-Exchange, etc. are in many cases silly and in
*all* cases either Not Enough or Open To Abuse.
However, that's as much as saying that if you've fallen off
the back of a boat and are well on your way to disappearing
beyond the horizon, and all I can find to throw to you is a
Lobster Trap on the end of a line, I oughtn't to try because
I don't have a proper Life Preserver. Sure, I might hit you
in the head with the Lobster Trap, knocking you unconscious
and causing you to drown - or the trap might be so heavy (it
was designed to Sink, after all...) that it drags the line down
before you can get to it. But the fact remains that if I *don't*
throw it the line will never reach you and you will *certainly*
drown. So I will curse under my breath and hurl the trap at
you, hoping you'll grab on and have the sense to pull yourself
up the line to he boat.
<rather proud of extremely silly extended metaphor>
> Yes I expect they are supposedto plant a few trees in deepest
> bonga bonga land to compensate but in reality a few war lords
> will pocket the money for arms and the poor which you seem
> to be concerned with - will still be poor.
Perhaps, but the key things here are these, Hardy: first and
foremost is that the Richer Nations _stop polluting so *much*_
(and of course I include Carbon Emissions as "pollution" in
that statement), and secondly that we _get the ball rolling_.
Remember that paper I mentioned I had written way back in
1975? One of the conclusions of the French Scientists was
that any Corrections put into place would take between ten
and twenty *years* to be felt. Another was that we had perhaps
_50 years_ before things became noticeably dire and coastal
cities began to actually _flood_. Well, here it is nearly 2010;
the 50 Years runs out in 2025 - just 15 years from Now, and
any changes and corrections we put into place _today_ will
only *start* to have noticeable effect between 2020 and 2030.
Work it out: we do not have Time to screw about with this
issue, *IF* you are wrong about it. (And by the way, how
will you _feel_ *if* you are wrong about it? If you turn on
your holoscreen in 2028, say, and see reports of yet more
Refugees fleeing yet more locales, due to drought, flooding,
etc. caused by AGW, what thoughts will go through your
mind? Will you pop Inland to the pub and brag about how
you fought the truth so diligently for so many years?)
On the other hand, let's take my case: so it turns out the
side I went with was wrong and we don't do anything and
no drastic circumstances obtain; I have _no_ problem at
that point saying, "Gee, I believed all that stuff on AGW
back then and advocated spending all that money reducing
emissions - oh well." Besides, if Governments are spending
money and effort fighting environmental issues, they will all
have less money and time to spend fighting Wars.
> I was brought up being poor and know what it is about, not
> third world poor of course but poor. The capatilist society
> has lots of faults and I hate it - however, to this date nobody
> has come up with anything better that actually works.
> That's your problem.
I am in favour of Capitalism. _Regulated Capitalism_,
carefully watched by Democratic Socialist Governments
with an eye towards preventing economic rape, pillage,
and exploitation. If a government cannot serve the needs
of the people, it has no right to exist. One of the functions
of Government is to prevent Crime. Some of the biggest
Criminals in the world are rapacious Corporations; they
must not be allowed to strip the earth clean of resources
whilst pissing in the pool where all of us swim. They must
be allowed to make a *decent* profit, and prevented from
gouging, manipulation, lies, and fraud. And if you don't
think that Big Petro has engaged in *ALL* of those criminal
activities, you haven't been paying attention. Were you aware
that Dick Cheney held secret meetings _with the Taliban_
just a little before the attacks of September 11th, 2001?
The idea was to allow US Oil Companies to run a Pipeline
through Afghanistan, with monies being paid _directly_ to
the Taliban leadership for the access rights. Look it up.
These scum know no Laws, no Morality, and no Decency.
They will strip the earth of every resource, destroying any
amount of natural beauty in the process, for a quick profit.
The people running them are short-sighted and will swiftly
put entire species - including *ours* - in existential danger
in order to increase their wealth. They are both Stupid and
Evil, and they need regulating.
Hoping For The Best,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> Personally I believe socialists don't give a shit about their
> own kind, they only like to rant and rave about ideology
> and who is right and wrong.
Socialism is _all about_ caring for People;
it's even part of the bloody *word*, FFS!
Sheesh!,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> I've been watching this little exchange between
> you and Bruce with some amusement but this
> crap about how arrogant it is to think we can
> influence nature is, well, a load of crap.
It's unusual to see you reach your snapping point,
and man, did you thoroughly cover the bases.
10/10,
The Phantom Piper
S�im� mac Liam
86b2-4ef3-be2...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
Save us from the misguided care of our neighbors.
La N
> The Phantom Piper <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:619a8ffe-
> 86b2-4ef3-be2...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 6, 11:15 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I believe socialists don't give a shit about their
>>> own kind, they only like to rant and rave about ideology
>>> and who is right and wrong.
>>
>> Socialism is _all about_ caring for People;
>> it's even part of the bloody *word*, FFS!
>>
>>
>> Sheesh!,
>>
>> The Phantom Piper
>
> Save us from the misguided care of our neighbors.
All those drugs in the 60s didn't do you a damned bit o' good, eh S�im�? !
- nilita
S�im� mac Liam
news:Q7%Sm.55150$Db2.1652@edtnps83:
There's care and then there's care.
HardySpicer
wrote:
>
yes well I have never disagreed with the war for oil theory. That's
what Bush was all about. He stood to gain personally even.
Even if I agree with all of this we are still left with the
fundamental problem - what power source do we use in the interim
period from now (or soon) to the magical time we find a replacement
that works for fossil fuel? If there isn't one they we have a choice -
burn coal and oil or rely on limited renewable energy and have power
cuts, loss of production etc. In fact have bugger all power at all if
you live in the city. It just isn't going to happen.
Would I feel bad if I woke up one morning and found the sea at my door
and everybody saying 'told you so"? Well probably no because I have
said all along that I disagree with the premise that humans are the
cause of global warming - such as it is at the moment (1 C in 100
years - not too bad). To me there is no causal relationship. The world
has heated up before and cooled down before. In fact I would expect
the next ice-age soon. Mankind would adapt and survive - we always do.
Do you really think that politicians can fix such a problem even if it
did exist? No chance in hell. You may as well kiss your arse goodbye.
There will always be a positive. As for oil, I don't think people
realise just how much we rely on it. Not just for fuel but for
everything from plastics to cosmetics to - you name it. We will be
blasted back into the 19th century when oil runs out. Now that WILL
happen - a certainty. So therefore we must go nuclear to at least have
enough power to get around - or burn coal.
Hardy
HardySpicer
Greening
Due to Climate Change
July 31 2009
Desertification, drought, and despair-that's what global warming has
in
store for much of Africa.
Or so we hear.
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which
rising
temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of
the
continent.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and
surrounding
regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions,
reclaiming them for farming communities.
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which
predict a
return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some
12,000
years ago.
Green Shoots
The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of
regions
including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the
south
that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening
throughout
the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including
central
Chad and western Sudan.
The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more capacity
to hold
moisture, which in turn creates more rain, said Martin Claussen of the
Max
Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not
involved
in the new study.
"The water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving force,"
Claussen
said
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Jeffrey Hamilton
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>
> :"In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its
> targets
>> to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country
>> that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have
>> cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already
>> risen by 26%."
>>
>> Well, that's the Conservatives for you. They are always in the
>> pocket of big-business, always to the detriment of Canada and now
>> possibly the :_world_, oh well.
>>
>
> Kyoto?
>
> Yeah, I thought not...
Read for comprehension,. Fred.
Quote: : In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its
targets
to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had
ratified the treaty has done this. Unquote:
That *new Canadian government*, was the Conservatives, Fred.
cheers.....Jeff
Lesley Robertson
news:d69b793f-46cb-48c8...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I'm not sure that's the argument though. The problem is - given that
>the earth is warming (let's say it is) - then are humans the cause?
>I'm not at all sure that has been established. I'm not against
>reducing polution by any means - good thing to do at any time.
>Neither
>am Ian oil lobbiest - we will have to learn to live with oil
>eventually. I just don't think they have established the cause.
Scientists will never give you a 100% certain answer because we are
all aware that new evidence can always turn up. I've spent most of my
life in environmental biotechnology, and the raw data is, for me,
completely convincing. In the 1980s we talked of the Greenhouse Effect
and we ignored, people only started taking notice when a few celebs
got involved. Climate change is not going to simply mean that
everyone's temperatures will go up a bit, it means that weather
patterns will be seriously disturbed - so much is controlled by the
temperature of the sea.
If you look at ice core analysis you get a historic record of the
atmospheric content of all sorts of junk from Vicrotian soot to
current levels of all the greenhouse gases - CO2, N2O, methane, etc.
Plot them on graphs and the trend is clearly similar to average world
temperatures. The match isn't perfect - other factors such as solar
activity also have an influence, but human activity, to my eyes,
clearly correlates with a great deal of the increase.
As Adam says, if we're wrong, money has been wasted. If the deniers
are wrong, a beautiful if overcrowded planet has been wasted, and we
don't have anoher one. If we're right, we don't have time to wait for
absolute certaintly - every year that passes will make the problem
harder to fix.
Look at your children and grandchildren - if I and most other
scientists are right, we're gambling with their future. It won't be
much of a legacy.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
>
> Fortunately 1% of "twits" were not taken in. Thank dog that a
> whistle
> blower couldn't stand the skullduggery and blew the a-holes out the
> water.
>
So one dud group makes us all dishonest?
Sad view of the world.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 02:20:33 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
> <gyans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>In fact the prof at the centre of this scandal has already stood
>>down.
>
> No, temporary administrative leave while the Uni investigates
Yes, it's that silly old idea about "innocent until proved
guilty".....
Lesley Robertson
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> Save us from the misguided care of our neighbors.
No thanks; I'd rather save our less-fortunate neighbours
from the tender care of Conservative Social Darwinists.
"Any time, any day, you can hear the people say that
love is blind; well I don't know, but I say love is kind."
Listening To What The Man Said,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> All those drugs in the 60s didn't do you a damned bit o' good, eh Séimí? !
You should have seen how callous he was *before* the dhrugs!
Just Sayin'...,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> Even if I agree with all of this we are still left with the
> fundamental problem - what power source do we use
> in the interim period from now (or soon) to the magical
> time we find a replacement that works for fossil fuel?
> If there isn't one they we have a choice - burn coal and
> oil or rely on limited renewable energy and have power
> cuts, loss of production etc.
You know my thinking on this: we are *NOT* (as you point
out) going to _stop_ using Oil. It just isn't going to happen.
(And in fact, it's probably a Good Thing to use it all up to the
point where opening new fields costs more than developing
new technologies...) So what we have to do is cut back on
the rise in the _rate of use_ (ie: efficiency and conservation),
while at the same time doing two things: pouring funds into
rapid deployment of alternative sources (Tidal, Wind, Solar,
Geothermal, Hydro) *and* development of Nuclear Fusion.
Now, you may very well disagree, and that's certainly your
right. I will not change my position on this and the reason
for that is that to me it's well thought out. God knows, we
have the Capability, so the *only* question is do we have
the Political and Financial _will_? If Fat Cat industry barons
and corporate scum continue to take the short view and hold
the safety (and economies) of the World hostage to their
greed then we are going to suffer. If governments can get
their acts together and both regulate these parasites as well
as cease to pour entire national budgets into War, then we
can do all of the above with time to spare.
Let me pose you a hypothetical question: if a large cometary
body were detected approaching the earth - a 'World Killer', as
they style them - and we had about Three Years Notice of it,
would the Corporate Scum and Government Eejits be able to
see past their respective agendas for Power and Profit and do
what was necessary to save all higher species on the planet?
Your Mileage May Vary,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> As Adam says, if we're wrong, money has been wasted.
> If the deniers are wrong, a beautiful if overcrowded planet
Well, it's what *I've* been saying to him - but I could
change my name to Adam if you think it will help!
> If we're right, we don't have time to wait for absolute
> certaintly - every year that passes will make the problem
> harder to fix.
So true.
And That's The Way It Is,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> So one dud group makes us all dishonest?
Not only that, but the 'fudging' itself was not
the sort of heavyhanded manipulation that the
media and Conservative politicians are making
it out to be. Datasets were merged in a less
than ideal fashion and transparency was kept
to a minimum.
Now, from my point of view, given the *Political*
Climate, this is still unforgivable; the people who
went along with this ought to be sacked and
shamed. In such a critical politico-scientific
debate *any* questionable tactics _must_ be
eschewed. (And of course, it's just Bad Science
to engage in them to any degree, regardless of
the field of research or the times.) But to hear
the mischaracterisations currently being bandied
about in the media says as much against the
Press and their techniques as it does about the
scientists they are reporting on!
> Sad view of the world.
"Honour dies where Interest lies."
Not Fooled,
The Phantom Piper
Lesley Robertson
news:04cccaa1-7371-4458...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>Well, it's what *I've* been saying to him - but I could
>change my name to Adam if you think it will help!
Abject apologies.
And no, I don't think anything's going to help. Too many people have
an interest in keeping heads buried in the sand - it's the "tobacco
has nothing to do with cancer" lobby all over again..
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
>Not only that, but the 'fudging' itself was not
>the sort of heavyhanded manipulation that the
>media and Conservative politicians are making
>it out to be. Datasets were merged in a less
>than ideal fashion and transparency was kept
>to a minimum.
Thee's been at least one claim that the thieves who stole the emails
might have also adjusted them.....
I'll wait for the results of the enquiry, I think.
Lesley Robertson
Scotty
<coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net> wrote:
>Scotty wrote:
>>> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
>>> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
>>> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>>>
>>> - nilita
>> Good question and Hardy has given a good answer.
>> IMHO, we humans are arrogant and overrate our importance and influence
>> compared to the power of Nature.
>
>Whens the last time you went down to a major river and had a nice long
>drink from it? I'll give you $20 US if you come come to Washington D.C.
>and drink a glass full of water straight out of the Potomac (that should
>cover the your deductible for the emergency room visit). Do you also
>doubt that we have over fished many species of important food fish to
>the point of commercial extinction? Speaking of extinction, whens the
>last time you saw a Passenger Pigeon, at one time the most common bird
>in North America? Do you also deny the existence of acid rain? How about
>the high levels of mercury now present in the flesh of apex level
>predatory fish world wide (now almost fished out). You think that eating
>sashimi is healthy now? Chelation therapy is getting hip these days.
>
>I've been watching this little exchange between you and Bruce with some
>amusement but this crap about how arrogant it is to think we can
>influence nature is, well, a load of crap.
Context Cory, "humans [...] compared to the power of Nature", maybe puny
would have a better choice of words than, importance and influence.
I agree totally with your summary above, you must have seen me, in my
exchanges with Bruce, claim to be an environmentalist, I've used words
like, "stop shitting on our doorstep", must clean up our act , I've pointed
to the slag heaps that engulf kids schools and many other. *I* have pointed
to acid rain, mercury in fish, I haven't mentioned before but we have
hunted species to extinction and over fished. It IS disgusting. I have
given you the Shah of Iran's famous quote, "oil is too valuable to burn"
and I would add coal.
But let me say this: nearly 50% of the new mercury each year comes from
burning coal most of the balance comes from volcanoes and we are too puny
to do anything about them, unhealthy sashimi, high levels of mercury now
present in the flesh of apex level predatory fish, comes largely from
burning coal, acid rain comes from burning coal, dead rivers result from
the sulphuric acid that leaches out of coal slag heaps, millions of people
have died from or suffered disastrous health damage from mining and burning
coal, need I continue?
I "think" more people have been killed or suffered health problems as a
result of mining/burning coal than from the consequences of the three major
Nuclear "accidents" (Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Chernobyl). And the atmosphere
is polluted from releasing CO2 that was sequestrated in coal.
I also believe that Nature is resilient, it must be else it wouldn't have
survived the assaults that we have made on it and it will rebound, if we
stop burning coal and the other hydro-carbons (both fixed and mobile).
Power is the forth most important commodity that we need after food, water
and air. If we ban coal and hydro-carbons which I believe we should, what
do we do, revert to the buggie and whip??
I'll leave that as an exercise for the student, answers next week...
I have also said that I am passionate about the Science and on the face of
it, the Science done at Hadley's Climate Research Unit, Penn State and Uni.
of Virginia is crap.
From the stolen e-mails:
http://tinyurl.com/yaee54z
"Mann didn�t react well to these hesitations from his colleagues. Even Ray
Bradley, a coauthor of the hockey stick article, felt compelled to send a
message to Briffa after one of Mann�s self-serving emails with the single
line": "*Excuse me while I puke*".
Scotty
Not at all, I do feel passionate though about what, on the face it, is junk
science and the consequences it will have on the trust of the general
public in science and GW. And yes, charlatans (on the face of it) should be
exposed. Sad.
--
All science is Physics, everything else is just stamp-collecting.
---Ernest Rutherford.
Cory Bhreckan
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:14:56 -0500, Cory Bhreckan
> <coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Scotty wrote:
>
>>>> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
>>>> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
>>>> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>>>>
>>>> - nilita
> Power is the forth most important commodity that we need after food, water
> and air. If we ban coal and hydro-carbons which I believe we should, what
> do we do, revert to the buggie and whip??
Why of course! Everyone *knows* that there is no alternative to
hydrocarbons besides buggies and whips. Your hyperbole has got the
better of me, I must retire to my feinting couch and brood.
>
> I'll leave that as an exercise for the student, answers next week...
>
> I have also said that I am passionate about the Science and on the face of
> it
Rubbish, you are passionate about *anything* that goes against your
faith, err, scientific conclusions.
>, the Science done at Hadley's Climate Research Unit, Penn State and Uni.
> of Virginia is crap.
>
> From the stolen e-mails:
> http://tinyurl.com/yaee54z
Note the word 'stolen', you put a lot of weight on the actions of criminals.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
La N
> > Look at your children and grandchildren - if I and most other
> scientists are right, we're gambling with their future. It won't be
> much of a legacy.
Yep. And that's why, as I've told Scotty, I prefer to "err" on the side of
caution.
- nilita
HardySpicer
wrote:
> Let me pose you a hypothetical question: if a large cometary
> body were detected approaching the earth - a 'World Killer', as
> they style them - and we had about Three Years Notice of it,
> would the Corporate Scum and Government Eejits be able to
> see past their respective agendas for Power and Profit and do
> what was necessary to save all higher species on the planet?
>
Wouldn't be up to them - I think this is a red herring Piper. There is
no doubt that this will happen at some point in time however and at
present there is little if anything we can do. They are looking (say
NASA) at this problem but have not come up with a definitive solution.
This is not because they cannot agree but because it is a hard problem
to solve with our limited technology. We would need a little help..
S�im� mac Liam
a443-4659-9e1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 6, 8:02�pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> All those drugs in the 60s didn't do you a damned bit o' good, eh S�im
> �? !
>
> You should have seen how callous he was *before* the dhrugs!
>
>
> Just Sayin'...,
>
> The Phantom Piper
>
I prerfer dispassionate.
--
Saint S�im� mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
HardySpicer
wrote:
> "The Phantom Piper" <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:04cccaa1-7371-4458...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Well, it's what *I've* been saying to him - but I could
> >change my name to Adam if you think it will help!
>
> Abject apologies.
> And no, I don't think anything's going to help. Too many people have
> an interest in keeping heads buried in the sand - it's the "tobacco
> has nothing to do with cancer" lobby all over again..
> Lesley Robertson
Well if you are a climatologist you must know more about it than any
of us. Can somebody please explain why the ozone layer problem is
still with us even after we have banned all those nasty chemicals? The
time I have been in NZ it has been as bad as ever.
Hardy
S�im� mac Liam
8ee7-4b4a-bbf...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 6, 7:56�pm, "S�im� mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
From my experience, most people's 'caring for people' is but a thinly
veiled desire to control the behavior of others.
HardySpicer
wrote:
> Scotty wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:14:56 -0500, Cory Bhreckan
> > <coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Scotty wrote:
>
> >>>> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
> >>>> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
> >>>> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>
> >>>> - nilita
> > Power is the forth most important commodity that we need after food, water
> > and air. If we ban coal and hydro-carbons which I believe we should, what
> > do we do, revert to the buggie and whip??
>
> Why of course! Everyone *knows* that there is no alternative to
> hydrocarbons besides buggies and whips. Your hyperbole has got the
> better of me, I must retire to my feinting couch and brood.
>
>
>
the environemnt than I ever will, but as an elect engineer I at least
know about energy generation and what is possible. Now exactly where
is that power to come from...cue Nuclear energy again. Can't have
that, it's not green - well it's back to buggy and whip as Scotty
said. There may be enough for a ten minute ride on your electric car
charged by solar of course.
Hardy
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> Too many people have an interest in keeping heads
> buried in the sand - it's the "tobacco has nothing to
> do with cancer" lobby all over again..
That's *exactly* what it is! Corporate greed and
shortsightedness and governmental inaction and
collusion driven by Lobbying. It's a disgrace.
And one that may kill entire species and millions
of humans through drought, flood, and famine.
Will We Never Learn?,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
wrote:
>
> I'll wait for the results of the enquiry, I think.
Always wise practise.
Still, I truly have no sympathy for any scientist who
_knows_ how important being Beyond Reproach on
this issue is, but then allows themself *any amount*
of laxity or flexibility with the facts.
Unfortunately Science is and always has been beholden
to Governmental Patronage and Public Opinion. It's a
burden (just ask NASA!), but one familiar to scientists
around the world. Just as you say, we must wait for the
results of the enquiry, but I can tell you that the damage
done just from the *appearance* of things is significant.
Keeping Things Clean,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> No, because technology doesn't just appear by immaculate
> conception and three years isn't enough time to develop and
> build what would be needed.
*Sigh*. I'm bothering to address you because that
statement - among the many which qualify you for
Rabid Twat status - is so remarkably inane that I am
compelled to reply.
The "technology" already _exists_, you cuif. In such
an instance, all that would be necessary would be to
configure several hundred (although you'd likely want
to use several *thousand*, just to be certain) of the
largest thermonuclear devices which could be built
and delivered to proximity, and then detonated. All
you would need to do is deflect the trajectory of such
a body by _less than 1%_ and it would either miss us
entirely or bounce off the atmosphere and keep moving.
Breaking it up into pieces small enough to burn up
during reentry is also acceptible.
What would be *difficult*, you chattering moron, would
be getting Governments to muster the Cooperation to
work together and the Moxy to force Corporate interests
into doing what was necessary, by nationalising them,
if push came to shove. Leave it to a Conservatard such
as yourself to think in terms of Costs and Bids when the
_survival of the planet_ is on the line. Thank you for
making my point for me.
> Reality is a bitch for folks like you, isn't it?
Said the Climate Change Denier and 'Defence'-Contracting
Corporate Scumball Fred "What, Me Worry?" McCall...
Evolved Well Beyond You,
The Phantom Piper
HardySpicer
wrote:
That sort of Science maybe but the majority of Science is based on
strong fundamental grounds.
It's only when politicians enter the arena that we get such rubbish.
Some scientists will give you the results you want if you pay for
their grants.
Now that is worrying - you can get plenty money to study global
warming as long as you agree with everybody else!
Hardy
The Phantom Piper
>
> Can somebody please explain why the ozone layer problem is
> still with us even after we have banned all those nasty chemicals?
A.) Who's "we" in the above sentence? They haven't
been banned in many places, and many Industries
still release them because they have waivers from their
governments to do so.
B.) Think _20-30 *Years*_ after you ban them for the
effects of banning them to be noticed; it simply hasn't
been long enough since the (incomplete) Bans went
into effect.
C.) There have been predictions that the Antarctic
Ozone Hole *will* be seen to shrink _somewhat_
during the 2010 recording period. It has shrunk in
the past (and expanded), but there is some data
to suggest that the reduction in halogens to date
_will_ have an effect. All we can do is
Wait And See,
The Phantom Piper
Scotty
<coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net> wrote:
>Scotty wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:14:56 -0500, Cory Bhreckan
>> <coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Scotty wrote:
>>
>>>>> oftentimes I like to "err" on the side of caution. What if, for instance,
>>>>> it turns out in a hundred years it is brought to home that we should have
>>>>> been more vigilant WRT global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> - nilita
>
>> Power is the forth most important commodity that we need after food, water
>> and air. If we ban coal and hydro-carbons which I believe we should, what
>> do we do, revert to the buggie and whip??
>
>Why of course! Everyone *knows* that there is no alternative to
>hydrocarbons besides buggies and whips. Your hyperbole has got the
>better of me, I must retire to my feinting couch and brood.
>
>>
>> I'll leave that as an exercise for the student, answers next week...
>>
>> I have also said that I am passionate about the Science and on the face of
>> it
>
>Rubbish, you are passionate about *anything* that goes against your
>faith, err, scientific conclusions.
OMG, sounds like PP is using your screen name...
>>, the Science done at Hadley's Climate Research Unit, Penn State and Uni.
>> of Virginia is crap.
>>
>> From the stolen e-mails:
>> http://tinyurl.com/yaee54z
Did you go to the link?
>Note the word 'stolen', you put a lot of weight on the actions of criminals.
I don't play favorites, they (CRU) have acknowledged that their server was
hacked, sounds like stolen to me. How they were obtained, criminal or
whistle blower is of course important but the content is more important.
We don't know for sure yet, the cops are investigating. But, given that
some of the emails are dated 1996, that there must be 'millions' of emails
on a Uni server, that the emails are a selected subset and the difficulty
of doing THAT remotely, it seems reasonable to assume that the leakage was
probably an inside job by a disgruntled employee or a scientist who felt
like puking..
No Uni spokesman has stated that any of the incriminating mails have been
edited or falsified, in fact M Mann has thrown Phil Jones under the bus in
an interview on the BBC verifying at least one of the emails.
"Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that
he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by
outsiders".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/mann-throws-jones-under-the-bus/.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6718183/Climategate-Phil-Jones-accused-of-making-error-of-judgment-by-colleague.html>
"Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: "I can't put
myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no
way endorse what was in that email."
Climategate: how the conspirators gagged on their deceptions
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_the_conspirators_gagged_on_their_own_deceptions/
Prof Andrew Watson of Uni East Anglia was interviewed on Australian ABC (I
think) and acknowledged the three or four of the most egregious emails. The
interview is on YouTube if interested.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked
8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley University of East Anglia CRU director admits
the emails seem to be genuine.
I don't think that there is any doubt that the emails are genuine.