Climategate

[shtove]

Scientists at the University of East Anglia accused of manipulating data to prop up the case for global warming. Wot!

Here's the leak of the emails:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...-62-mb-of-gold/

And the leak of the computer programer's notes on his work (good read!):
hide the decline

Hmmm. This could get as heated as the religion thread because ... global warming theory is a religion. Hehehe!

My view is based on the understanding that we live under a government that is constantly seeking to expand its powers. That is the great issue of our times - not the banksters, the currency system, the global warming controversy - but the insistence by experts that we can't look after ourselves.

In the last year the government has taken over the banking system, taxing productive people to spend on a bunch of spivs and to prop up housing and consumer credit markets.

For years the government has proposed taxing productive people to the point of state-dependence on the basis that productive work is harming the environment in the form of global warming. To justify this, it has funded scientific research that shows that burning fossil fuels is driving us toward a critical point in global temperature rises.

It is a fair inference from the links above that one of the centres of global warming research has manipulated its data through suppression, falsification, destruction and the use of dodgy computer code to ensure the results desired by government.

This morning I walked out and it was dry. By lunchtime it had rained on me. But in the afternoon I was dry again, only to get soaked on the walk home from the train station. Believe me, climate change does exist. I'm just not willing to believe that I'm responsible for it or that I should pay extra to government on the promise that they can prevent it.

What say ye?

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Nov 25 2009, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Scientists at the University of East Anglia accused of manipulating data to prop up the case for global warming. Wot!

Here's the leak of the emails:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...-62-mb-of-gold/

And the leak of the computer programer's notes on his work (good read!):
hide the decline

Hmmm. This could get as heated as the religion thread because ... global warming theory is a religion. Hehehe!

My view is based on the understanding that we live under a government that is constantly seeking to expand its powers. That is the great issue of our times - not the banksters, the currency system, the global warming controversy - but the insistence by experts that we can't look after ourselves.

In the last year the government has taken over the banking system, taxing productive people to spend on a bunch of spivs and to prop up housing and consumer credit markets.

For years the government has proposed taxing productive people to the point of state-dependence on the basis that productive work is harming the environment in the form of global warming. To justify this, it has funded scientific research that shows that burning fossil fuels is driving us toward a critical point in global temperature rises.

It is a fair inference from the links above that one of the centres of global warming research has manipulated its data through suppression, falsification, destruction and the use of dodgy computer code to ensure the results desired by government.

This morning I walked out and it was dry. By lunchtime it had rained on me. But in the afternoon I was dry again, only to get soaked on the walk home from the train station. Believe me, climate change does exist. I'm just not willing to believe that I'm responsible for it or that I should pay extra to government on the promise that they can prevent it.

What say ye?[/b]

I'm not gonna get tied up in a big is there/ isn't there scientific argument. Simply because I have never read anything about it, it really doesn't interest me.

However, my point is based on common sense over waste.

If you turn lights off when you're not in a room, or be sparing with water, it saves you money. So you should do it for your own benefit. And if not for your own benefit, it also means the state does not have to provide quite so much electricity/ water, which means they save money, and ultimately so will you because they won't have to tax you so much.

If there's rubbish on the street, it doesn't look nice. Put it in the bin. Common sense.

Driving cars... do what you like. But be aware that if you drive a 4x4 in London, you're inconveniencing yourself on small roads, in small parking spaces, and you also look like a twat.

Energy - wind farms will give you energy so long as the turbines work. Coal plants will so long as you have coal, and people paid enough to mine it. Common sense says 'renewable energy' is the way forward.

I think hippies getting angry over a new runway at Heathrow and cheaper air fares are very annoying. These are necessities for progress. But just take a tiny bit more effort to waste less, and it could go a long way.

Doesn't really matter whether you believe in climate change or not, there is no situation where waste or overuse is a good thing.

 

[durbutter]

CO2=Greenhouse gas, it absorbs strongly in the uv region, reducing the levels of emmission radiation escaping the atmosphere, causing radiative forcing, causing an increase in global temperatures, causing changes in climatic patterns. Simple.

Now. The amount of CO2 being emitted has and continues to increase exponentially. What the f*** else is going to happen but climate change. I am sure that climate change is being used as a tool by some people for their own interest. But Sthove are you seriosly sayin the Gov'nt have created lies. Cos if they have it means most of chemical physical and geo-climatological known and proven concepts are lies. I think the above conspiracy theory is silly. the concepts underpinning climate change are scientific fundamentals. you can't just make it up.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

The biggest waste of all is the lack of recycling, especially in England. We are catching on and doing it a lot more but I think it needs to become law.

 

[Prestwick]

This has got nothing to do with government control or economics or even the climate.

Does an increase in emissions cause enivronmental effects? Yes.

Is the <strike>campaign</strike> war being waged by Climage Change evangelists bourne out of a vision to save the planet? No.

This is the new class war. Pure and simple. War is being waged upon the old establishment, the rich and the middle classes. Essentially those who stand for the "old order" of things.

Example, today we're being told to eat less meat in a thinly veiled attack by PETA and other left wing groups on omnivores and the "landed gentry" (i.e. British farmers) who they believe are responsible for large chunks of Britain's carbon emmissions. The reality? The National Farmers Union states that Farming is actually responsible for 1% of Britain's carbon emissions and rather than being part of the problem by harnessing animal methane and investing in biofuels it is actually part of the solution.

We the people are pilloried by the social engineers and the idealists for taking flights abroad and then we're again pilloried when we decide to take a car to the train station when we decide to go by Eurostar instead. We're attacked for not recycling properly, we're bullied when we decide that a car is best used for driving around the countryside.

And then we move to energy. Every time we try to sensibly develop a strategy we hear the same old whinging. Clean Coal is too dirty , nuclear fission is too risky, fusion is a waste of time don't bother, lets all leave our homes and live in caves powered (occassionally) by wind turbines in the highlands of Scotland instead. We can form a commune and make whicker baskets and dance around celebrating the winter solstice in our little utopia! It'll be so much fun!

No, no it won't. It'll be the apocalypse and the heralding of the new dark age but because we're bickering and people at Friends of the Earth, et al seem to confuse "endless moany nit picking" for "constructive debate" and thats whats harming the consensus towards forming a joined up plan to combating climate change through a combination of carbon trading schemes, renewable systems what WORK, nuclear (yes, I went there) power and ploughing ahead with making fusion power a reality. We need to build faster train networks, build more metro and tram networks, get rid of bendy buses (as they have created so much negative PR that they're pushing people back into cars) and reward people for recycling rather than punishing them if they don't.

Even when the UK announces that it wants to build the worlds newest and best High Speed Rail network including future proofing for trains that go over 300mph we hear the inevitable droning of the various idiots who whinge that "it doesn't go far enough" or that "the carbon produced from making the steel in china will offset the gains any such network would produce!"

Theres a theme here. THERE. IS. NO. POSITIVE. DEBATE. HERE. WE. ARE. ALL. TOO. BLOODY. CYNICAL!

But above all, we need to take the agenda away from the class war fools who think that this is a great opportunity to bash the rich and the middle classes.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Nov 26 2009, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

But Sthove are you seriosly sayin the Gov'nt have created lies.[/b]

I am. Do you see any truths in the governments' case for the invasion of Iraq, the bankster bailout?

Agree with ginger and st hel - don't waste, keep it lean, trust your common sense.

Man-made global warming theory is worse than End of Days stuff - it promises salvation from apocalypse, but pretends to be based on observable fact.

 

[durbutter]

I'm not talking about how climate change is being portrayed in the meeja and whatever. Just science. It is happening, now obviously governments will spin it whatever way they want but the fundamental theories underpinning climate change are solid. I agree that people are exaggerating the possible consequences and the dividends of the policies being put in place atm.

Man-made global warming is happening. its consequences is now whats up for debate.

 

[Olyy]

My old biology teacher, and a couple of lecturers at uni are really passionately against the global warming is going to destroy the world kind of things in papers, they acknowledge that climate change is happening, but the government/papers are scare mongering. My biology teacher always used to go on about the doctoring of information as well, as when he was doing his PhD thesis he was leant on to change his results to fit what the *whichever gov dept it was* wanted them to say
I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion, but like gingergenius said, it just makes sense to be more environmentally friendly as it does save money.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Nov 26 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'm not talking about how climate change is being portrayed in the meeja and whatever. Just science. It is happening, now obviously governments will spin it whatever way they want but the fundamental theories underpinning climate change are solid. I agree that people are exaggerating the possible consequences and the dividends of the policies being put in place atm.[/b]

This is the point.

Science is based on observation and hypothesis, and replication of experiments based on the observed data.

The observed data are in the hands of government sponsored bodies - how else could the data be gathered? - and the links above are evidence that those data have been deliberately corrupted.

Hard to know what this is really about. Is it corruption, or are contrarians just being contrary? I dunno, but I doubt that the researchers and government advisers have been acting like scientists.

Needs a lot more openess and analysis before we can be expected to throw our wealth into an intellectual lottery. Oh wait - we already did that with our bailout of the banksters on the recommendation of economists acting on fraudulently skewed data. Grrrrr.

 

[Prestwick]

There is a huge industry now in IT to reduce power, cooling and production costs through greener and more efficient technology and by using virtualisation to reduce the number of physical servers and computers and thus reduce power costs. This does tend to be frowned upon by the likes of Friends of the Earth as it involves people making money and we can't have that obviously.

For all their bumpf on bashing Jeremy Clarkson and hectoring us into recycling not oncehave I seen them congratulate the likes of HP, Dell and IBM for producing more energy efficient servers which will reduce the carbon footprint of the likes of Yahoo and Google.

If they were positive for once in their lives, if they said "look guys, here is someone doing the right thing! How awesome, right on!" in a major press release and if they highlighted the success stories then a lot more people would be on board with their vision.

I'm not going to debate the science but I will point out who holds the pants in this debate.

Greenpeace calculates that Exxon has spent about $45 million (over a decade) funding climate sceptics, and the Royal Society even went so far as to write to the oil company asking it to desist from doing so. It did: last year Exxon withdrew from funding climate scepticism.

Nearer to home, it is interesting to compare the sums that Exxon has managed to spray towards sceptics with the funds available to their opponents. Take the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, which employs Professor Lord (Nicholas) Stern, the man who says no price is too high to pay to stop global warming. It is named after Jeremy Grantham, who has endowed the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment with £165 million, six times Exxon's decade-long spend in a single dollop.

Makes you think...

 

[dullonien]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Nov 25 2009, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'm not talking about how climate change is being portrayed in the meeja and whatever. Just science. It is happening, now obviously governments will spin it whatever way they want but the fundamental theories underpinning climate change are solid. I agree that people are exaggerating the possible consequences and the dividends of the policies being put in place atm.

Man-made global warming is happening. its consequences is now whats up for debate.[/b]

Not in my opinion. There is no such thing as man made global warming. Global Warming is occuring, but it's not our fault, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

My eyes were opened after I watched a Channel 4 programme called ' The Great Global Warming Swindle' that was made in respone to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Basically, man made Co2 contributes to something like 0.001% of Co2 released into the atmosphere. Co2 is also a reletively minor greenhouse gas, in terms of how damaging it is and the quantity. The biggest greenhouse gas is infact water vapour, I can't remember the numbers, but it's quite insane!

Coupled with that (this is the biggest thing that's been kept out of the media), looking at graphs of Co2 levels and temperature shows something very strange. Instead of Co2 levels rising followed by the temperature rising, the opposite occurs, i.e. temperature rises and after a short lag, Co2 levels rise. This is enough evidence for me to completely disregard the theory of Co2 causing glabal warming.

If it's not Co2, what is it? Well how about the one thing that effect eveything that happens on this earth, the sun! Data collected shows there's a very close relationship with the amount of sunspots (increased solar activity) and temperature. In periods of increades solar activity (such as now), temperature has shown to increase. This is turn heats up the sea which releases huge amount of Co2 that's stored in sea water (hence the lag seen between temperature and Co2). This is still just a theory, but one which fits alot better than any other.

I urge people to watch both 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and ' An Inconvenient Truth' and make your own minds up.

Edit: I'd like to add that it still doesn't mean we don't need to conserve energy. The rate were consuming recources at the moment is unacceptable.

 

[Prestwick]

Personally I blame Wales and New Zealand for Global Warming. I think we should just annex the two countries and make them play for the 8 other top ten rugby nations instead

England bagsy Shane Williams, Conrad Smith and Mils Muliana already!

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 26 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

England bagsy Shane Williams, Conrad Smith and Mils Muliana already![/b]

In that case, you lose. Again.

 

[durbutter]

I'd urge people to look at the Science and not some controversy spining C4 doc.

dull i think you should be cafeful to give creedence to such show. Those shows do not have to have irrefutible scientific sources (such as those stats. qouted) just a soundbyte. i'd love to see the sources for those figures because that 0.001 sounds rediculous. Ya water vapour absorbs more but so what water vapour in the upper troposphere is not nearly a major constituant of air. but it can vary. CO2 does not and constitues ~28% of air. Obviously the most prevelant ghg, not the most potent.

As to you're other point i do not know, but obviously this programme came in with the aim to discount radiative forcing, so it will hardly tell the full story.

Look there is much disinformation about. Don't be lazy enough to let a C4 doc decide your opinion. find the published articles, get informed, then then decide what you feel.

This, along with the sustainability of resources will be the prime issue for this generation, probably deserves more of a yes no, right wrong answer.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Nate Rowlan enters the room, looks around sees familiar faces. He ponders the idea of a debate that could be as heated as the "religion" thread. His thoughts drift towards seeing old alliances broken and new ones emerging. He cracks his fingers confidently before he slowly reaches out to touch the keys on his netbook:

Well, since you're asking for my opinion, I sure have no problem giving it.
I believe that all the emmissions do have an effect on the environment. Full scale global warming? I'm not so convinced, but it's not unthinkable.
What I'd like to add to this debate is something from the annuls of time. Any of you know about "The Little Ice Age"? You should. It's the cause of "The Dark Ages".
My point being, this planet has been on a warming pattern since the 1800's. Are we hastening the change? I'd say if you listen to Al Gore enough, then yes we are. However, notice that after a period of warming, This planet then reverts to a period of cooling. That is out of our control.
Please, for your review look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
More importantly, to understand my viewpoint pay attention to this section of that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Ag...nveyor_Shutdown

It is this Oceanic Conveyor Shutdown that we could see. What the Green Hippy Science Tree Huggers aren't talking about is this particluar backlash. Global warming, that we cause, could snap and turn into an Ice Age. They always talk about the glaciers melting and then massive flooding, etc... But from the historical record, the more the ice caps melt, the more water is in the ocean shuts down the Oceianic conveyor that brings warming water (and along with that more plesant weather) for the northern and southern hemispheres.

ICE AGE, people...now that's EPIC!

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Nov 26 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'd urge people to look at the Science and not some controversy spining C4 doc.
.
.
.
Look there is much disinformation about. Don't be lazy enough to let a C4 doc decide your opinion. find the published articles, get informed, then then decide what you feel.[/b]

That's the point again. What is the science, what is the information?

The government paid the scientists. The government uses their information.

It seems those scientists can't be trusted because they worked as paid propagandists rather than as scientists.

The theory of man-made global warming is up in the air. Who knows?

 

[dullonien]

Ok, I accepted that the doc was out to disprove the man made theory thing. I would of course need to fully look into the sources of the information used, however there is some good points brought up by the show. One of the people interviewed was one of the co-founders of greenpeace ironically. There were also a bunch of other scientists from the likes of NASA etc. Howver I couldn't be usre that they were all leaders in their field. It's still certainly worth a watch, as it brings up things that have not been explained imo.

I've known about the Co2 figures for a while, before I watched that documentary. The sea does in fact release the most amount of Co2 into the atmpsphere, aswell as volcanos.

How does the 'man made global warming' theory explain all the other hot and cold spells experienced throughout history? How does it explain that during the industrial revolution where coal was heavily burnt producing much more Co2 than now, the temperature was in fact dropping at that time? How can we ignore the sun? It effects every other thing on this planet, from tides, to seasons to weather. Isn't that a much more likely sourse for this phenomenon were experiencing.

As you pointed out, their sources are debatable, however the show did provide scientific evidence regarding sunspots. Sunspots have been recorded for hundreds and hundreds of years. It was thought that the amount of sunspots directly effected the weather (something tested by a scientist and found very acurate for long range predictions). The amount of sunspots recorded does fit in very nicely to the temperature increases/decreases on earth. I haven't investigated into this much further, but it's something that should be considered imo.

 

[durbutter]

More CO2 being produced now than ever before, look up the IEA's stats. Well temp dropping? the earth goes through cyclic natural global cooling and warming. since the 1860's there has been a marked fluctuation in global temperatures, when compard to the previos thousands/ millions of years. Sunspots may contribute to the natural cycle of cooling and warming, but the nett energy budget of earth has not altered sufficently to affect the wide variations (comparatively) in temperature in the last 100+ years.

To be fair i haven't heard too much about this sunspot stuff, sounds fishy, maybe thats because in 4 years of studying environmental science i haven't come across it, and am just being stick in mud. Just did a search there and it doesn't appear very published about, which would make me think it's not really being accepted by the wider scientific community. Could be due to assumptions made, methods used or conclusions made in the studies of it could be a sign that the scientific communtiy is biased against other climate change theories, which i doubt, if another theory was unearthed would'nt that mean more funds and research oppertunities for the scientists?

I donno.....

 

[dullonien]

I suppose that's the biggest thing. Why do so many scientists accept man made global warming if it weren't true. This documentary tried to explain that, but I wasn't completely convinced. It was all to do with government funded research where the researchers were asked to find links between Co2 and global warming. However, I'm not sure I can buy into such things so easily.

Here's the wiki for that documentary, have a read. It was in fact pulled up on some things by OFCOM, but they seem to relate more with the political part, not the scientific parts. Still hard to judge, but it's convinced me to be more sceptical.

As I've said though. It doesn't change the fact that we need to reduce our relience on fossil fules, reduce the amount of waste we produce etc. We will render this planet unhinhabitable if we carry on in the same manor, even if global warming doesn't turn out to be caused by human beings.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Nate Rowlan enters the room, looks around sees familiar faces. He ponders the idea of a debate that could be as heated as the "religion" thread. His thoughts drift towards seeing old alliances broken and new ones emerging. He cracks his fingers confidently before he slowly reaches out to touch the keys on his netbook:[/b]

lol, nice one Nate.

 

[Jethro]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Nov 26 2009, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noidsay @ Nov 25 2009, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not talking about how climate change is being portrayed in the meeja and whatever. Just science. It is happening, now obviously governments will spin it whatever way they want but the fundamental theories underpinning climate change are solid. I agree that people are exaggerating the possible consequences and the dividends of the policies being put in place atm.

Man-made global warming is happening. its consequences is now whats up for debate.[/b]

Not in my opinion. There is no such thing as man made global warming. Global Warming is occuring, but it's not our fault, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

My eyes were opened after I watched a Channel 4 programme called ' The Great Global Warming Swindle' that was made in respone to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Basically, man made Co2 contributes to something like 0.001% of Co2 released into the atmosphere. Co2 is also a reletively minor greenhouse gas, in terms of how damaging it is and the quantity. The biggest greenhouse gas is infact water vapour, I can't remember the numbers, but it's quite insane!

Coupled with that (this is the biggest thing that's been kept out of the media), looking at graphs of Co2 levels and temperature shows something very strange. Instead of Co2 levels rising followed by the temperature rising, the opposite occurs, i.e. temperature rises and after a short lag, Co2 levels rise. This is enough evidence for me to completely disregard the theory of Co2 causing glabal warming.

If it's not Co2, what is it? Well how about the one thing that effect eveything that happens on this earth, the sun! Data collected shows there's a very close relationship with the amount of sunspots (increased solar activity) and temperature. In periods of increades solar activity (such as now), temperature has shown to increase. This is turn heats up the sea which releases huge amount of Co2 that's stored in sea water (hence the lag seen between temperature and Co2). This is still just a theory, but one which fits alot better than any other.

I urge people to watch both 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and ' An Inconvenient Truth' and make your own minds up.

Edit: I'd like to add that it still doesn't mean we don't need to conserve energy. The rate were consuming recources at the moment is unacceptable.
[/b][/quote]

So that honking big hole in the Ozone isn't caused by pollutants then? Tell that to people get sunburn in Melbourne on cloudy days.

And oh the issues with river systems in Oz aren't to do with irrigation, the use of chemicals or any other activity?

Everyone does realised that "climategate" is a bet up by some tabloid right?

Oz is taking the issue serious, just had a free study of me house down with a number of issues being raised, power consumption, lack of veranda on the western side of the house, and not having water tanks to start with. Should be in line to grab some of that interest free green loan money in the next few weeks.