Climategate

[Thorne]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

I don't think so. The ice gets thicker in some places, due to localized weather conditions, and thinner in other places. Overall, though, the warming is having an effect.

[Ozme52]

Here's the perfect article: Reduce your family's Carbon Footprint. Here's How You Can Personally Help.

I took the liberty of rewording the title.

[SadisticNature]

Reduce humanities carbon footprint through...

Global Thermonuclear War.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

"Sorry, but that's bullshit."
You think that does not qualify as harsh?!

[DuncanONeil]

It'd be a good trick on my part because you haven't actually offered any evidence. All you've done is make a bunch of declarations. If there's a link you've provided to prove anything in this thread, I must've missed it.

Links prove little. There is evidence that has been presented. There are specialists that have published that call into question the orthodoxy of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. These have been referred to and yet the AGW crowd simply say either;

*"that does not matter"
*"that is an aberration and therefore unimportant" or
*"the consensus of science is"

But the fact is the issue is not settled, the consensus is disputed, it is possible that the warming is aberrant. Add to that the propensity of the AGWs to hide methodology and/or raw data makes the pronouncements suspect. Then there is also the fact that the announced projections use only the worse case scenarios as the baseline.

[DuncanONeil]

Duncan, Wiscoman, you have lost me a little in your deep arguement, and i am just avarage man on the street when it comes to politics. These caps on CO2 emission, just who is going to police the results in ten years or twenty years time, and if they are incorrect, what is going to happen to the defaulting country?

The plan is for there to be an extra-national body that will have the power to regulate.

China have just been given freedom to do as they please, so what is the point of it all.

China was not really given a free hand. They agreed, but refused to allow external verification. Retaining the ability to report themselves how well they are doing.

The UK and Europe agree on a cap, are we supposed to compensate for the developing countries.

The whole plan is for the "rich" countries to pay the "poor" countries for having ruined their air over the years. Here is a bit of info on UK and Europe. They signed on to Kyoto and yet after some ten years their CO2 emissions are actually higher than before. Yet the US without signing on to Kyoto has continued to reduce CO2 emissions

If the bigest poluter at the moment is unwilling to sign up, then the confrence was a failure, and dont think the Chinese will change their mind in six months or six years, because that Copenhagen confrence was water of a ducks back to them.

By this I presume you mean China, as I said above they desire to control the data reported.

[DuncanONeil]

Your response is a tautology! ""right" temperature for the planet" and "optimal temperature for human civilization" is the same thing.

Worse than your food concern is without enough CO2 we don't breathe!
Being the slightest bit off can push the planet into an ice age. Just which do you think would be worse?

There is no "right" temperature for the planet. That's a fallacy. What we want is the optimal temperature for human civilization. That would be the temperature which allows the most fertile areas for crop growth to remain productive. For without crop growth, we don't eat!

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing you say changes the fact that the data is "corrected". Nothing you say changes the facts that the data is not being made available, and that the factor of "correction" and the formulae are not forthcoming.
There should be no need to "correct" historical data. Historical data is fact and if you are to determine trends the raw data is sufficient. If historical data is being "corrected" I find the conclusion already suspect.

Not all models show a marked increase in temperature. Even a single model does not show only increases in temperature. Why then is that the only thing we are supposed to hear or believe? It is harder to believe when it is revealed that the prognostications are in fact the worst case scenario, not the "average" to which you refer.

Average temperatures in the past have been much higher than now, yet the planet seemed to be able to fix itself, presence of man notwithstanding!

Then there is the constant tinkering with the historical record. Along with the fact that the reports are not in concrete terms but in differences of an average. Since the average can be selected, or the "correction" is the determined average, the data over, or under, said average is again suspect.

The models are developed from historical data, then run through historical scenarios to insure they match up with actual climate conditions. If they do not, then the programs are "tinkered with" to correct any variations. The data remains the same, only the models are changed. Once they do an accurate job of "post-dicting" climate conditions, they are allowed to run into the future. There are many different models, using many different data sets. All are showing a marked average increase in global temperature. There will be some warming trends and some cooling trends, lasting several years sometimes. But the low temperatures in the cooling trends are not as low as they have been historical, and the high temps in the warming trends are slightly higher than historical. The average temperature is definitely rising.

And the raw data is there to be studied, if you want it. The problem is, the whole damned thing is so complex that, without a lot of study and experience the average person cannot easily understand that data. Even among the experts, the interpretation of the data and the conclusions gathered from the models can vary significantly. But the trend is still upwards.

As for the current supposed cooling trend, remember that the sun has just been going through a sunspot minima period, one which lasted longer than expected. Now, it seems, the sunspots are beginning to return, which will probably mean another warming trend. With a peak temperature higher than the last trend's peak.

[DuncanONeil]

That was a quote I could find. But you show what I keep saying. The fact that the area doubles each year is simply dismissed as not being a bit important since it affects the AGW mantra.
For what you say to be true, the area has to double each year and that much and more must melt, each year.
Also reports have been both heard and seen that the depth of the ice cover on the continet is increasing as well. I could not find a quote in the time alloted to produce responses.

Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

[DuncanONeil]

The reason that the "hacking" is being made the focus of the news is to attempt to attack the messenger since the message can't be attacked.
When an inconvenient truth surfaces, do everything you can to swing the focus off the truth and on to something else.

As for the falsified data mentioned earlier, yes the whistle blower did hack into their stuff, but that didnt change the fact that the scientists in question have been found out to be liars and yet nothing is being done about that. Those who support the whole "lets scare the world into compliance to our agenda" crowd just shrug and keep trying to make the focus on the whistle blower's methods as if that alone somehow invalidates what was being whistled. Typical sophist trick when cuaght red handed. Kind of like the husband that thinks he can get away with the affair if only he denies it happened just one more time.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm not happy with Copenhagen either. But basically, what you're saying is that if you're on a sinking ship and one person refuses to bail, no one should bail and everyone should go down. Obviously, I disagree.

So if you are on a ship and the word is there is a 30 foot hole up front and we all need to bail to help the pumps. But George saw a 30 inch hole, well within the capabilities of the pumps, everyone must still bail?

[DuncanONeil]

And there are reports of an increase in volcanic activity. Perhaps that is the planet changing the atmosphere. If that is the case, and we futz with the atmosphere, perhaps we would be making it too cool

No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.

The point is that a forced reduction in CO2 reduces the amount available for plant respiration. With sufficient reduction plant life would need to produce less offspring to survive. Hence less to support other life on up the chain.

[DuncanONeil]

Regulating CO2 emissions is not commerce!
Especially when the pressure to allow legislation is a threat to use extra-legislative means and make it worse.

How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.

[steelish]

How is regulating industry outside the constitutional purview?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In any case, it's a matter of national defense. Just because a threat isn't military doesn't mean that the government has no right to defend against it. That'd be an insane and suicidal restriction.

Define "threat" the EXACT same way that the federal government will define it. What you deem to be a threat I'm sure would be a lot more serious than what the feds would define it as. Besides, they're not regulating uniformly across the US. What they're doing is making deals with foreign governments, hoping that the other governments will be honest and follow similar regulations. It WON'T happen! China is already balking and stepping back from the entire issue.

Who is going to police this? Who is responsible for making sure the Cap and Trade regulations are followed? The EPA? I'm sure the other countries are all for the U.S. policing it. (Ha!) Are we planning on using the honor system? We're going to trust that everyone will follow regulations? (Just as we trust that others don't try to build nuclear weapons, or plan attacks, or plot against the U.S.)

Besides, the text from the constitution has been taken out of context (in my opinion).

To break it down:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

It is my belief that when they wrote; "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" they were speaking of GENERAL WELFARE - the United States as a nation, not individual welfare (as in health care, and I realize this thread is not about health care, and I will get to the Cap and Trade thing later).

then they wrote; "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" This implies that all states are to be treated equally and the states are to form their own laws/policies. (again, according to provisions in the healthcare bill, some states are treated differently than others)

and now to get to what you were referring to;
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

The Cap and Trade does NOT regulate commerce! It regulates emissions and carbon footprints! And while we're restricting ourselves and imposing these policies that raise the prices of all our goods to our own citizens, how are we to ensure that other world powers are doing the same? We take their word for it? Are they going to allow the EPA - a U.S. agency - come in and "police" their production facilities?

[DuncanONeil]

The Cap and Trade does NOT regulate commerce! It regulates emissions and carbon footprints! And while we're restricting ourselves and imposing these policies that raise the prices of all our goods to our own citizens, how are we to ensure that other world powers are doing the same? We take their word for it? Are they going to allow the EPA - a U.S. agency - come in and "police" their production facilities?

And at the same time we are increasing the costs to our own people. we promise to pay Billions to the rest of the world. Not give or lend but PAY.

[steelish]

And at the same time we are increasing the costs to our own people.

lol. That's what I said!

We promise to pay Billions to the rest of the world. Not give or lend but PAY.

Now THAT'S the part I think many "pro" Cap and Trade citizens DON'T realize! Not only that, but there won't be any reciprocation...and we will likely be one of the few developed countries doing it. (It's all about redistributing the wealth...on a global scale)

[DuncanONeil]

lol. That's what I said!



Now THAT'S the part I think many "pro" Cap and Trade citizens DON'T realize! Not only that, but there won't be any reciprocation...and we will likely be one of the few developed countries doing it. (It's all about redistributing the wealth...on a global scale)

And it is reported that the Copenhagen agreement also permits the establishment of an extra national body with the power to lay taxes and penalties!

[steelish]

And it is reported that the Copenhagen agreement also permits the establishment of an extra national body with the power to lay taxes and penalties!

I have no doubt of that. We certainly have a shortfall of federal organizations. (Can you see my eyes rolling? 'Cause they are!)

[DuncanONeil]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!

I have no doubt of that. We certainly have a shortfall of federal organizations. (Can you see my eyes rolling? 'Cause they are!)

[steelish]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!

I know. The blind acceptance is what scares me. Either that or many are so blinded by the "do good" attitude that our government has nurtured that in the effort to save a tree they will ruin the forest.

[VaAugusta]

Deleted by moderator for flaming.

[TantricSoul]

As the friendly neighborhood moderator I would like to say:

STAY ON TOPIC, IF YOU NEED TO ATTACK SOMETHING IN YOUR POST, ATTACK THE THREAD NOT THE OTHER POSTERS!

You've been warned.

TS

[steelish]

Yes but this is a body with ties to no nation with the power to tax and levy fines!!!!!

In which case it would be an "international" body...no?

[leo9]

I've stayed out of this thread up till now for fear of what I might find, but at last I couldn't resist. It was as bad as I feared... man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.

I'm going to post once, then I'm getting out of here and staying out, or I'll go mad.

Some simple facts (I'd call them "inconvenient truths," but the flames would be beyond the moderators' control.)

Forty years ago when I was an "ecologist" (as they called environmentalists back then), the theory of global warming was already worked out and the predictions of what would happen had been made. Those predictions have come true, for forty years now. Most scientists would call that proof.

It's not about complicated computer models: the theory is simple arithmetic. The complicated models are to work out what the simple arithmetic for the planet means in detail, country by country and year by year. In the same way that doctors can do a quick X-ray to tell you you've got cancer, then need more tests to tell you exactly when and how you'll get sick and what treatment is best: but if you think all those tests mean they're not sure about the cancer, you're fooling yourself.

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

Now I'm off, before the replies make me give up discussion altogether, to get back to my project to move to a self-sufficient farm on high ground in Sweden. Because if this, Gaia forgive us, is an intelligent group talking, then it's painfully clear that nothing will be done till the sea is lapping over the streets of New York, by which time it will be far, far too late.

[DuncanONeil]

I know. The blind acceptance is what scares me. Either that or many are so blinded by the "do good" attitude that our government has nurtured that in the effort to save a tree they will ruin the forest.

I think you hit the nail on the head her! Perhaps if we hit it harder they will gets some sense.

[DuncanONeil]

In which case it would be an "international" body...no?

In this case, no. It is more appropriately identified as "Extra-national" or "Supranational"

[DuncanONeil]

I'd be willing to respond but what is the point. A hit and run poster is not interested!

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

I've stayed out of this thread up till now for fear of what I might find, but at last I couldn't resist. It was as bad as I feared... man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.

I'm going to post once, then I'm getting out of here and staying out, or I'll go mad.

Some simple facts (I'd call them "inconvenient truths," but the flames would be beyond the moderators' control.)

Forty years ago when I was an "ecologist" (as they called environmentalists back then), the theory of global warming was already worked out and the predictions of what would happen had been made. Those predictions have come true, for forty years now. Most scientists would call that proof.

It's not about complicated computer models: the theory is simple arithmetic. The complicated models are to work out what the simple arithmetic for the planet means in detail, country by country and year by year. In the same way that doctors can do a quick X-ray to tell you you've got cancer, then need more tests to tell you exactly when and how you'll get sick and what treatment is best: but if you think all those tests mean they're not sure about the cancer, you're fooling yourself.

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

Now I'm off, before the replies make me give up discussion altogether, to get back to my project to move to a self-sufficient farm on high ground in Sweden. Because if this, Gaia forgive us, is an intelligent group talking, then it's painfully clear that nothing will be done till the sea is lapping over the streets of New York, by which time it will be far, far too late.

[steelish]

The data is not hidden or suppressed or secret. Weather stations all over the world publish their results and have done for a century or more, and the results are collected in many places, and anyone who cares can collate the results and do the math. Nobody is hiding it or faking it. Unless you want to believe that all the meteorologists all over the world, not to mention all the geographers and oceanographers and climatologists and ecologists and NASA, are united in a vast conspiracy to lead us into the hands of communism... in which case, just keep your tinfoil hat on and wait for the UFOs to save us.

And finally (sigh) no, there is no possibility, zero, zilch, nada, that efforts to cut CO2 emissions might lower it to the point where plants grow less. Plants did just fine before humans started burning fossil fuels, and they will do just fine when we finally give up doing it, because humans and animals will still go on breathing. Well, most of them. There is a real possibility that a lot of humans will stop breathing if we screw up the climate badly enough, but that won't bother the plants.

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed. What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

And more to the point, not ALL scientists agree on this issue. There are many who refute the entire Global Warming/Climate Change issue.

We exhale CO2...since when is it considered a toxic gas? No one has claimed that reducing carbon emissions will cause less plant growth. (at least, I certainly don't think that) We simply pointed out that plants turn CO2 into oxygen. The scare tactics used are humorous, at best. It certainly doesn't help the "Climate Change" cause that the most vocal supporter is Al Gore, a veritable nut job. Not only is he loony as a jaybird, he also stands to make a LOT of money from the "climate change" scare as long as he can keep the train moving forward.

[skp2bear]

In Houston this morning at 6:30 it was 54 degrees. Our normal daily temperature this time of year is 62. It is now 39. Tomorrow we will not get above freezing. I cannot recall ever having a prolonged hard freeze for this long and I am 65. I tend to agree with Ducan supporting the tilting of the earth's axis as the culprit having seen no indication of prolonged heat waves even where we are said to have a subtropical climate.