Climategate

[Wiscoman]

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?

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.

[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]

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.

[denuseri]

I told ya the "Sun" has more to do with it than they wish to give it credit for! But than anyone who has taken astromony can tell you that too. But then again so does geology. But noooooooooo, it has to be humanities fault. Give me a break, yes we can and do effect the atmosphere in different areas, but the entire atmosphere? Their are still scientists that disagree with that theory.

If they have made the "interpetation" of the data hard to analylze , my guess is its been done deliberately.

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]

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.

[steelish]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

[Wiscoman]

My issue is that it is almost unheard of for the U.S. government to get involved with anything other than what they were designed to do via the constitution without causing problems and chaos.

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.

[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)

[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.

[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

[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'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.

[leo9]

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

My point exactly. There was a theory that predicted an ice age, and within a few years it became clear that the things it predicted were not happening, so it was forgotten like a million other theories that didn't work out. And there was a theory that predicted global warming, and year after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said, so more and more scientists came round to it, until it changed from a crank theory to the accepted fact and the Bush administration had to start firing people for saying it. That's how science works: by the evidence.

Which is why scientists don't speak the language of politics, where evidence is less important than who owns the media.

[DuncanONeil]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case. And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.

[leo9]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case.

So you keep saying. Thousands of weather stations around the globe say differently. One big conspiracy.

And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.

By the way, Steelish says that nobody on this thread has claimed that anything was hidden or suppressed. That nobody would be you, right?

Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.

Where is this data, and why, if that's the case, do the meteorologists say the last decade was the hottest on record? I forgot, they're all lying.

[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.

[DuncanONeil]

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.

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.

Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it. As well as the "fudge factor in the model used to finalize the data.

As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

[leo9]

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed.

On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it:

Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it.

Dudes, the raw data is in the public domain, all over the world. But if people look at the original figures they won't see what you want, so it's simpler to claim the figures don't exist.

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.

So when thousands of scientists who don't rely on government funding say the same thing, you have to invent other reasons why they're lying.

Scientists lost their funding and lost their jobs under the previous administration for reporting climate changes that Dubya didn't want to hear about. That's on the record. Show me one person who's lost grants or funding for attacking AGW.

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

There is always someone to put the contrary case, that's how science works. A says yes, B says no, the rest look at the evidence and a majority come around to one point of view. You can find scientists to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that cold fusion works, and that evolution is caused by virusses from space. All of them will tell you that the reason the majority of scientist disagree with them is that they're in the grip of a vast conspiracy.

And these contrarians are not always harmless sideshows. When HIV deniers got the ear of the South African government, thousands of deadly ill people were denied life-saving drugs and told to cure themselves by eating beetroot.

No one has claimed that reducing carbon emissions will cause less plant growth. (at least, I certainly don't think that)

Duncan said exactly that, several times. If you're claiming it was a joke now you've been called on it, let him say so.

As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

I haven't seen the original quote, but I would bet a lot of money that it's been misquoted, the way a perfectly true remark about his involvement in ARPAnet was twisted into "Gore claims he invented the Internet". Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change. Or do you know something about geophysics that I and Gore don't?

Sigh... I said I wouldn't get caught up in this. Being drawn in... Must resist... Sanity in danger...

[Thorne]

Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change.

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

[leo9]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

[DuncanONeil]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

Not according to Gore who has stated on more than one occasion the millions of degrees of heat internal to the Earth contribute to Global Warming.

[steelish]

On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it.

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

[leo9]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

No, you're right, Duncan said it was "destroyed." I guess he could have meant it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate act of suppression or concealment.

Was that what you meant, Duncan?

[DuncanONeil]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

I believe I did say the guys in Manchester destroyed their source data and that their model program has a formula for adjusting the data that is being held back from the peer community.

[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.

[steelish]

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.

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!