First and foremost — contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the email was sent in November of 1999 should have allayed any such confusion.
In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.
Here is an interesting report that won’t get airtime in the U.S.
Screw this pointless argument. The US (well the whole world) is cruising towards an oil shortage. Worldwide demand is going up while supply has leveled and now dropping. Oil will be $200/barrel in the next 2-3 years so get over it.
The west needs to become efficient users of energy because of basic supply and demand. Either get in front of it now and lead, or be in the same position we are now – reliant on the next generation of foreign energy supplies and technology.
Father said:
“CEOs won’t pay for this issue, the consumer is always passed the bill! Companies always pass thier costs on to consumers, that’s business 101.”
True!
Worse,The Oil companies pay the lowest of tax rates but then they are subsidized at tax payer expense.
They hire lobbyists and PAC’s to influence Our Government to work in Their favor and not for You or for Me.
Then They refuse to take responsibility for Their Own actions and blame everything on the Government that They bought and We pay for.
Seems that welfare is fashionable for the elite but the other kind of welfare,for the needy,keeps Limbaugh and Beck hooked on dope so that They may sleep at night.
#22, qb, I agree. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on a the red herring of anthropomorphic forced climate change, lets change the MO and get all nations and scientists together sharing ideas and information, writing peer reviewed (cough) papers… for the sole purpose of utilizing the forces of nature to efficiently and abundantly fuel our energy needs.
That’s where the REAL problem is, and we are wasting time, money and resources over something we will ultimately have no control over. The climate will do what it was going to do, regardless.
That’s what really pisses me off about this debacle.
here’s some more info about the climate deniers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=player_embedded
If all people would quit expelling so much CO2
and Methane gas we wouldn’t have this problem.
#22: “The US (well the whole world) is cruising towards an oil shortage.”
My friends who discover new oil fields for big oil companies disagree with this. We’ve still got quite a bit left, and lots of untapped reserves, according to them.
#20 “Mother nature and our precious Sun have far more influence on Earth’s changing climate than pollution”
Too bad 99.1% of all scientist don’t agree with that. But who CARES. You have faith and magic and “belief”…that’s better than science. Sure you need/use science to create geo-synchronous orbiting satellites which broadcast digital time division multiplexed microwave signals to ground repeaters off to LCD televisions powered by nuclear power plants…all to put on some televangelist jackass who tells me the creator of a trillion galaxies doesn’t want me to eat bacon.
We can kill rivers, make lakes dead and lifeless. We can EASILY if we wanted create a runaway greenhouse effect. We can’t “kill” the planet, it will recover in 100,000 years, 100 million years a 2.36 billion years…but we won’t be here to see it because the anti-science religious nuts will always deny reality (because THAT gets THEM more money and power).
If anyone has faked any science data in a peer reviewed journal, it will come out. Calm the F**K down you lunatics. Just like the folk who claimed to have cold fusion, in science (unlike fake made up superstitions and religions) you have to EVENTUALLY prove your argument with facts and ANYONE can use facts to tear DOWN your argument.
Most revealing email of all from “climategate”
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”
It’s pretty clear that the actual scientists doing research on climate change pretty much consider the so-called “Climate Change Skeptics” to be either clueless imbeciles or corporate agenda shills. What I’ve seen of “the evidence” of falsification of data seems to have been more in line with a change of methodology in how the data was being presented so that people who had the scientific know-how of a colony of cherrystone clams wouldn’t misinterpret the data to confuse the issue for the benefit of, oh say, the coal industry. The only real response has been some of the researchers involved falling on their swords for the good of the project. Most other climate scientists seemed feel that it’s a classic “Nothing to see here, move along.” Expect any further email exchanges to be done with full 256 bit AES encryption.
lol@28 encryption had nothing to do with it, most likely the emails were pulled off by the researchers themselves and the files copied at some point or backed up on a network system.
But I don’t WANT ANY scientist to use 256 bit encryption for ANY of their correspondence. And you shouldn’t either. Any truly scientific work should be accessible to all, and be able to be peer reviewed with the original data and methods used.
Anytime I see words of “dropped data points” or “filtering”, I immediately start to question the work. Every single data point in a series should be explained, or there should be a list of those “problem” data points with a continuation of research to see if they are valid.
True scientists do NOT EVER change the raw data. This is the part I question — I think we have some scientists who think it is ok to modify data without explanation when it suits the end results or doesn’t impact them.
At the moment, there are major holes in both sides arguments about human-based climate change — largely because we don’t have a long enough data set to be able to clearly state the results of a path taken.
There also have not been (at least I’ve not heard of any) experiments to determine the actual impact of co2 in particular areas over a period of time, with comparisons of lowering and increasing the measures in the local atmosphere. This is largely because the experiments would be so expensive that they probably would never be completed (not to mention the ethics involved). And so, scientists try to model the climate and show these impacts — without having a way to actually test their theories in reality.
The modelling results are largely what I think we are seeing. Predictive models of real world results largely fail, primarily because there are too many variables involved to solve what is a combination of macro and micro effects.
In any case, at this point I do expect the scientific community to validate the research done and check that all of the raw data has been accounted for in their results.
I the find the debate between pro-climate change and anti-climate change pretty much the same fighting as I see in theists and atheists.
Both sides think they are so smegging sure, but really neither knows for sure one way or the other.
Until we get some moderates I have no desire to even deal with either side of the fence.
Cursor_
#30–Cursor==you do know what happens to your balls when you straddle a fence don’t you?????
Thats right. If you are neither pro nor con then you are quite right not to talk to either side. Instead, you should go get yourself some edumacation to get smart. Then, go test your opinions against the pro’s and con’s.
Over time, you will find that usually, people too dumb or uninformed to have an opinion aren’t really worth talking to.
#12–JimR==you raise an excellent point: how should we mere mortals, barely familiar and not experts at all in any given field, nonetheless form an effective/valid opinion on subjects that are relevant and impacting on our lives to which we all owe a fiduciary obligation of care to tend to for our kiddies?
On any “important” issue one will find “evidence” on all sides of the issue. Hanging one’s hat one one, or a group of such evidence is problematic. What to do?
I think taking “reasonable/affordable” steps to what appears to be consensus thinking is the most pragmatic response. Won’t always be right, but it will be reasonable, affordable and pragmatic.
Common sense does play some role. It would be “unusual” to take a given atmosphere and then pump trillion of tons of carbon into it and then claim “there will be no effect.” The evidence for no effect would have to be thoroughly convincing.
I don’t see that in this debate. Curse Me. ((Did Scott really do that??==hah, hah. The boy “cares.” Cracks me up.))
lets make a change..
INSTEAD of shipping our problems to other nations to MAKE pollution for OUR GOODS..
MAKE us responsible FOR the CRAP..
It will force metal and gold price DOWN..
WE have the ability to CLEAN the air, but its NOT PROFITABLE…
we can ACTUALLY reclaim many materials FROM the air.
This Climategate is a small drop in the ocean compared to the myths about viruses and HIV.
I don’t know who to trust on this one… the liberal alarmists or the conservative scumbags.
#35–Somebody==gee==what happens when you ignore an alarm that was correct vs what happens when you ignore a scumbag that was correct?
Weigh, balance==make your bet.
I don’t know which side of this issue is correct, but I am sure of the following:
1. “climate change” issue has been hi-jacked by people with agendas that have nothing to do with the environment.
2. Science is for the buying.
3. Both sides of the issue are on the take in one form or another.
#26 brm
Sure new sources are being discovered. I get that – my neighborhood is full of geologists, engineers, and petrophysicists. Finding oil and bringing it to market are two different things. For example, if the US exploits all their new sources of oil (drill baby drill) you’ll cover 20% of your energy trade deficit (assuming it’s brought online immediately).
So where are going to get the rest? Iran? South America? Africa? The US doesn’t want oil sands energy (both Rep and Dems) which makes up the vast majority of the world’s unproven (2P) reserves. The arctic? Offshore? All speculative and difficult still which means 20 years before they come online.
The US especially is being held hostage by foreign energy – plain and simple. Even with the energy boom of 2004-2008 new production barely kept up with old reserves drying up while world wide demand keeps growing. The peak year for oil discoveries was 1965 at about 65 billion barrels/year. 2006 it was about 10 billion barrels/year.
Yes, new oil is being found but it’ll be harder to find, come from difficult environments, and from political unstable areas. Is the US having fun spending trillions on securing the middle east? You’ll have to do that in South America, Africa, or Russia next. BTW, China wants that oil too and they have a lot more cash.
Or, the US can start innovating and changing now. Personally, I think the US can do that better than anyone and it’s the best option. And it’s profitable.
I went to the American ‘Thinker’ website and the first archived article I see is “In Defense of Sarah Palin”.
That tells me all I need to know about *that* website!
Next up- how to run your car on nothing but water. Honest- it’s for realz!