Environmental integrity

Well, well . . . still defending your pension . . . or is it ego! East Anglia is exposed, Bill, a hoax: your cover is blown.

Have I not, just a few weeks ago, asked you to extend the "x" axis back to the "Mediaeval warming"? The schlockie shtick, horror of horrors, is just Photoshop!

"Take me off this thread " was your petulant response.

For too long I have watched you pontificate from high only to see you run when the heavy questions come on.

You have spent too long ducking real issues, running away before reality bites, jetting off biz class, living in the sprawl, eating dead animal, retirement home in the sprawl.

Practice what you preach . . . then, and only then, you have my permission to whine . . .

Time serving at SCARP Bill: you have a problem! Too many pretty girls sniffing your fundamental aperture. You get a distorted impression of your own importance.

Criminally Negligent ... You Bet We Are

We kill babies don't we?? Any society that condones that kind of violence should not be surprised by other acts of a criminal nature.

(Oops, re-The Quote mentioned above)

Should read:

The quote mentioned above, Jones and Mann ..." discredit the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming"

is pure hyperbolic piffle, hyper-inflated by the Flat Earth Denial Society; as has been made amply clear by comments and statements from legions of authentic cliimate scientists. Head to DeSmog Blog for some excellent links if you need convincing.

Does this event damage the reputation of science. Yes, in a minor way ... but NOTHING in this rigged email scam comes even remotely close to the malice and malfeasance and outright hucksterism that the Denier Society evokes on a daily basis.

please submit your comments once

Urbanismo, please just make your point once. I don't need to view your 25 identical posts. It does nothing to reinforce your opinion, makes it look personal, and is just not helpful. There's a real discussion going on in the Tyee. Ranters are welcome, but, just one post per, please!!!

[NOTE: URBANISMO'S DUPLICATE COMMENTS WERE TRIGGERED BY A BUG WE'RE CURRENTLY TRYING TO FIX. IT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO COMMENT USING SAFARI V.4.0.4. FULL DETAILS, HERE: http://thetyee.ca/Tyeenews/2009/11/26/DuplicateComments/]

And the scam steams forward

Not surprised. Trillions of dollars in booty at stake here. For the first time the developing nations are starting to see what evil looks like, something that was only privileged to the under developed (looted) nations.

Climategate is like the “Mark of the Beast” distinguishing friend from foe. Climategate is an instrument of beauty enabling its possessor to see evil with the most casual observance.

I was trained for 4-5 years

I was trained for 4-5 years as a scientist the good professor mentioned above for decades and we are the suspect ones? really.

you are wrong even climate scientists agree:

“What has been noticeably absent so far in the Climategate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigours of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking,” American climate scientist Judith Curry wrote. She figures the damage inflicted by this affair on the credibility of climate research “is likely to be significant.”

Who do I believe, the naked partisans here or my lyin' eyes?

sorry forgot to change

sorry forgot to change browsers to comment

Post once indeedie ho

Huh I'm beginning to feel victimised . . . wake up web master ho . . .

Post once indeedie ho

Huh I'm beginning to feel victimised . . . wake up web master ho . . .

Well, it looks like all the toothpaste has gotten....

squeezed out of the Global Warming toothpaste tube.

Good luck trying to put it back in. Next time, maybe it would be worth not listening to scientists whose ethics are at par with those that have worked for the Tobacco Industry.

Regrettably for the taxpayer, everything analyzed and written by Jones, Mann et al. with forever be tainted with the spectre of data misrepresentation at best, data manipulation at worst.

What a waste of time, talent and money.

Furthermore, as the data and views of Jones and his collaborators are so disproportionately represented in the various IPCC assessments and policies, I am going to find it pretty hard to keep a straight face when somebody waves the IPCC dictates around me.

At any rate, not much more to talk about if we are going to continue to wave around the views of data manipulators.

The Debate is over.

Well, I am glad to see...

That there are a few Mac users around here.

For those of you who use PCs. You are all Flat Earthers and I am sure you believe that the Apollo moon landings took place in a soundstage in Arizona. :^)

Soooo, which 50% ??

"Nonsense. A recent poll shows Americans are split down the middle on the issue."
I'd be astounded if 50% of Americans know or even care about anything outside their own immediate lives.

Multiple posts recurringggggggggggg

Firefox 3.5.5. won't do it, even if you're on OSX 10.6.2

Astounding

What's truly astounding is how much the denial movement has to rely on sweeping generalizations. Newsflash, people the world over are pretty much the same... and frankly America holds top marks for a whole lot of things, including being the most generous in giving to charitable causes (per capita). Pretty clearly they care about lots of things outside their immediate lives.

If they best you can manage is slagging your neighbour, maybe it's time to work on your talking points?

30, 000 species a year: will Carbon Credits save them? NOT

Ian Plimer is a professor of Geology and he has a lot of confirming evidence that science is being manipulated and omitted by current "top 40" Athropogenic Global Warming sponsoring industries.

Making environmental degradation (which exists everywhere in our world) a commodity to be debt transfered on the stock market is the only CRIMINAL act occurring here. Some "environmental" movement groups, they are astroturf organizations, meaning they are run by known apologizers who have co-opted an issue from genuine hard liners (grass roots) and will make good points, but not the real critical points. Astroturf organizations "cave" to government/corpocracy rather than remaining dedicated to the ecological goal, which in this case would be to actually stop polluting and change our ways rather than making environmental degradation a commodity for the stock market. Astroturf organizations take the powerful voice of the grass roots people away and replace it with slick compensation and compromise that coincides with government agendas.

Carbon creditsand debits is not the way to go: allowing corporations and government to create a new industry based on trading carbon credits and debits (that will be bigger than the oil and gas industry was) is a continuation of the puppet government run by the behind the scenes ruling elite. It perpetrates the continued management of the sheeples by falsely reassuring them that government is doing something about the fact that we are losing 30,000 species a year, when in fact all they are doing is creating a new commodity for the stock market so the oligarchs can continue to squeeze the life out of the planet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&NR=1

Clarification on Realisticman's comment

"Firefox 3.5.5. won't do it, even if you're on OSX 10.6.2"

Realisticman, are you saying you used Firefox 3.5.5 and had the duplicating comment problem? I ask because I haven't seen duplicating comments from you recently (if at all?).

Let me know,

Thanks.

Geoff

I'm on a Mac running OSX 10.6.2, on The Tyee using Firefox 3.5.5. and no duplications are occurring.

Ouch ouch ouch

The legislative process is not constrained by simple statute law. I thought everybody learned that in grade school civics, but apparently I'm wrong. It's painful to see non-lawyers fantasizing wildly and wrongly about the use and application of the law. One might even begin to suspect that their views of climate issues are equally unsound.

Too little too late?

It is refreshing to hear this dialogue begin. However I wonder if it is already to late for governmental action regarding country-states regulation. We need to address climate change at its roots – consumerism – in Canada's case at the Tar Sands. Thank you Greenpeace for taking action and blockading a few tar sands sites. Also - that you to the activists who conducted a peaceful sit-in at Gary Lunns office today! http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2009/12/02/LunnsOffice OR http://canadaclimatejustice.wordpress.com/

Climate Truths

Despite their negligence I am pleased to see that the political captains of Canada's fossil fuel team has at least the integrity to recognize that the hacked emails prove nothing in terms of the science connecting human activity to climate change: "E-mail hacking controversy doesn't change climate science: Prentice" (http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=2295489).

The Huffington Post has done a great job refuting denialist lies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html.

Finally, in my effort to understand why climate denialists are denialists I found this great article on the psychology of denial: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/cold-comfort-the-psychology-of-climate-denial-20091202-k5r8.html.
I hope it helps those of you who are scared of coming out of the denial closet.

The Real "Deniers"

If the climate science and data models show that global warming is an "undisputed fact", then WHY did the East Anglia CRU spend so much time:

a) obstructing the UK Freedom of Information Act
b) destroying and manipulating data
c) subverting the peer review process
d) persecuting dissenting scientists
e) intimidating science journal editors
f) instructing programmers to build models with foregone conclusions

The only answer can be that their science was not solid enough on its own. Why else would you need to strong arm the process? To manufacture a consensus, perhaps and to keep the grant money flowing?

The real crime against humanity was attempted by corrupt scientists doing the bidding of corrupt governments.

The only evidence for "global warming" was in computer models. Now we know they were manipulated.

I think many universities will have to re-think certain departments.

time for lawful folks to bail

When the majority of views of any political movement defend criminal acts then that movement has been hijacked by bandits and is no longer legitimate.

That’s the time for lawful folks to bail

Mopled and Soleprobe are absolutely right

I don't deny that the climate will change. I don't deny that once upon a time continents were in different places and they split apart. Earthquakes happen. Volcanoes erupt. Ice-ages and hot periods occur. The ideas that we can stop this from happening by building more public transit, stopping people buying cars or having ice water in restaurants, etc. is what is absurd.

The lying and manipulation of data by ideologically driven AGM crusaders has almost certainly damaged the progress in the reduction of pollution than none of us who breathe want.

Sure. The climate will change and the physical geography of the planet will too but don't try and tell me that we can stop this natural evolution by following the social engineering dictates of a few scamming academics.

Truth Tools

Think you can believe whatever you read?

Start by reading Climate Cover-Up, but don't get angry, get smart. Here are some tools.

How do you know that who you read is an authority? Enter the writer's name in Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.ca/schhp?tab=cs ). What is the author's expertise? Has the writer been published in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal?

Here's a cool database of Climate Scientists including information on how often they have been cited by other Scientists! http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

What say the world's leading Climate Scientists, currently actively working on Climate Science? Download your own copy of the most recent IPCC report here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Truth Tools

Think you can believe whatever you read?

Start by reading Climate Cover-Up, but don't get angry, get smart. Here are some tools.

How do you know that who you read is an authority? Enter the writer's name in Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.ca/schhp?tab=cs ). What is the author's expertise? Has the writer been published in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal?

Here's a cool database of Climate Scientists including information on how often they have been cited by other Scientists! http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

What say the world's leading Climate Scientists, currently actively working on Climate Science? Download your own copy of the most recent IPCC report here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

oops

I'm back with Firefox but too late I see. Sorry.

Chris

Look into the IBT chemical testing scandal of the 1970s.

For a start, see: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/10/i11/html/11regs.html

Ethical Standards;

... the Denialist ethical logic in action:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython#p/u/58/k3jt5ibfRzw

Which begs the question of what to do with the 'ethical lapses' of, say, Lord Monckton:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php

... loading ethical programme ... 1% complete ...

Science vs PR

"These principles require us to do certain things

We agree to argue rationally, and in good faith,
from shared evidence,
to whatever degree of shared conclusions are warranted."

http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html

Accountability in Action

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/director-of-climate-change-res.html

Deniers in Action:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/07/noaa-ncdc-is-the-us-temperature-record-reliable-deniers-anthony-watts-surfacestationsorg/

enviro-fascism raises its ugly head again

Next They will call for so called "deniers" to be sent to concentration camps. Liability suits such as this represent much of what is wrong with the system today. The idea that scientists are unbiased observers of fact is a myth as climategate reveals to those who are paying attention. Follow the money. They are being paid by those who stand t0 profit from the political carbon economy. The same masterminds behind the political economy of the central banking system. They just hide behind pretty faces like David Suzuki.

It is indeed regrettable

that AGW has become either a political or a financial bone of contention. Sure, climate has swung from unbearably hot to unreasonably cold and vice versa several times over millions of years. But those changes in the past were balanced by nature, the comparative gases necessary for life (oxygen for animals and carbon dioxide for plants) jointly increasing or decreasing in conjunction with life itself.

For the past several thousand years we have seen the gradual melt and retreat of the glacier which covered most of Hudson's Bay and the rest of Canada. But currently (for the past several decades) Man's population has exploded, and his control over the rest of animal and plant life has increased in an exponential way. He has also released much of the carbon (stored from the distant past in coal and petroleum) while simultaneously destroying (or modifying) much of the plant life on the planet.

The problem is not so much that Earth is in a warming cycle, but that we have disrupted that cycle, essentially since the Industrial Age began.

So we are the problem. Some of us refuse to acknowledge our culpability. It won't matter in the short run, however. The deniers will fry along with the rest of us, until nature restores the balance.

Politics and finance could alleviate the imminent disaster looming ahead, and prepare the world for the inevitable change that is coming sooner than we think. But they won't.

Phil Jones steps down

http://www.dailytech.com/Head+of+Embattled+UK+Climate+Center+Steps+Down+Amid+Misconduct+Allegations/article17014.htm

Apologies if there is another link to this story.

An addendum -

I don't rely upon figures, graphs, blogs, etc., so I don't post them. I just trust my instincts, look around me, take everything with a grain of salt, and believe the believable.

Over my 77 years I've come to the conclusion that the negative attitude displayed by deniers generally means that they don't like the truth, but do like fairytales (probably for comfort's sake) and are mostly egoists looking inward instead of outward, seeing bogeymen everywhere, especially in the dark or hiding under the bed.
Better watch out, or AGW will get you.

For a more balanced view

Check this site for a more balanced view of what is happening in the science of climate change.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=copenhagen-and-climate-change

High Treason

So the Canadian government is breaching its own Laws on two counts: 1) High Treason, 2) Criminal Negligence. See yesterday’s Clip: Alberta Tar Sands make Canada a Climate Criminal - http://openintelligence.amplify.com/2009/12/02/albertas-tar-sands-make-canada-a-climate-criminal/.
For a copy of the outline of the High Treason case, email

ClimateGate is not really a big deal. But...

Climategate has hit the AGW scene like the first stone chip you get on the windshield of your car.

Not really annoying at first. But you know its there and one day you will have to deal with it.

After a while, it starts to spider. Then it becomes the source of crack propagation.

Eventually, you have to replace the windshield. You ALWAYS have to replace it.

So, for the Pro-AGW crowd. Downplay as much as you want, but the fact is there. Every time you say something to support AGW or say something derisive to a "denier", you know that you are seeing the stone chip at the same time.

australia and climate change part 1

One has to watch when generalizing about rainfall in Australia. Anyone who has travelled in both desert and tropical areas realizes that intensity, duration and temperature in hot climates are important factors when determining whether "australia" is actually receiving more rainfall than ever.

The last sentence alone should give rise to questions like, is this due to climate change? Or if you are like me you wonder about intensity (time and amount) and temperature. An area can receive heavy rainfall in a short period of time with high temperatures and still be considered a desert.

Australia is a continent and in comparing size to the rest of the world Australia is more than twice the size of both west and eastern European countries including the UK. Probably a better comparison is between Australia and Canada. Australia has almost 8 million sq. kms and Canada almost 10 million sq. kms. So making broad statements like Australia is receiving more rain than ever therefore climate change is a hoax is just not rationale. You wouldn't come to a conclusion about Canada's precipitation amounts without looking at regional data.

However, this is the game or noise being produced by those, who for some reason, wish to remain in denial and due their best to cloudy the discourse.

Here are some facts regarding climate change as observed, not predicted, in Australia.

Temperature

Australian average temperatures have increased 0.9°C since 1950, with significant regional variations. The frequency of hot days and nights has increased and the frequency of cold days and nights has declined.

Rainfall

Since 1950, most of eastern and south-western Australia has experienced substantial rainfall declines. Across New South Wales and Queensland these rainfall trends partly reflect a very wet period around the 1950s, though recent years have been unusually dry. In contrast, north-west Australia has become wetter over this period, mostly during summer.

From 1950 to 2005, extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency has increased in north-western and central Australia and over the western tablelands of New South Wales, but decreased in the south-east and south-west and along the central east coast.

Oceans

Global sea levels rose by about 17 cm during the 20th century, and by around 10 cm from 1920-2000 at the Australian coastal sites monitored. Substantial warming has also occurred in the three oceans surrounding Australia, particularly off the south-east coast and in the Indian Ocean.

part 2 to follow

australia-climate change part 2

It doesn't take much to research and determine whether the facts or figures quoted by the denial noise machine and the climate change alarmists are valid or whether or not other aspects of the "facts" have been adequately vetted.

The best thing about science is its inherent skepticism.

We have had some release of email communications between a few of the climate change research scientists that unfortunately have bruised the work of others, however, none of this noise refutes the overall conclusions of data and observable information.

The area I live in receives far more extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and winds than it has in 50 years. The once in 10 year extreme winds are now more frequent. In 2007 we received 3 of these extreme winds and in 2008 two such winds (these are winds that topple large trees).

Now that some scientist's emails have been released I would challenge the main actors on the denial side to publish their emails between their collegues, the oil industry and public relation firms.

After all, good science requires an examination of all of the material from all sides of an argument.

I think the world would be shocked by the contents of emails from the "denial side". What passes as science and discourse is for the most part really a well 'oiled' public relations strategy which has successfully conned some citizens who for some reason tend to distrust science and especially governments but for some strange reason embrace corporate massaged information with arms wide open.

It isn't pleasant having to think about our actions in life and the impacts they may or may not be having on the health of our planet and atmosphere. It might mean that we have to make personal changes, a lot of changes, however, this does not have to be seen as negative. Examining our purchases is a good start. We are nurtured by our planet, it is imperative that we acknowledge this and have respect for all living things, after all, do you poison and extinguish that which feeds you?

There is no environmental movement

“The focus of the [Copenhagen] Summit is on strictly environmental issues. No mention of the word "war" --i.e. the US-NATO led war and its devastating environmental consequences.

“No mention of the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of ‘peacemaking’.”

“No mention, as part of an environmental debate, of the radioactive fallout resulting from the Pentagon's humanitarian nuclear bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons, according to scientific opinion commissioned by the Pentagon are ‘safe for the surrounding civilian population’.”

“No mention of ‘weather warfare’ or ‘environmental modification techniques’ (ENMOD) and climatic warfare.”

“No mention in the debate on climate change of the US Air Force 2025 project entitled "Owning the Weather" for military use. (See FAS, http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm see also http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051031_mystery_monday.html)

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.”

“We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.”

From Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Global Warming: ‘Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy’" November 30, 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16339

A bunch of sick psycho-freaks with unlimited financial backing are on the brink of the ultimate power grab.

People of good conscience, we are privileged to be on the frontlines of the greatest, emerging epic battle against the powers of darkness in the history of the world.

plg: An interesting argument about emails but:

So far, FOI requests have not been made for any publicly funded "denier" scientists. Feel free to do so.

With regards to the emails of PR and oil industry companies, what they have to write is predictable and, quite frankly irrelevant.

Why so? Because we already know that they do not work in the public interest. We know that a tobacco scientist is working for the company and the shareholders. It is implicit, we know it, and we modify our opinion about what they are up to based on that knowledge. Seeing emails would only confirm what we already know.

Now, Jones, Mann and their colleagues are on a university payroll. They work for the UK populace (Jones) and the US populace (Mann). Their emails belong to their respective nationals. Now, as they are principals in the UN's IPCC, and, as Canada, via my tax money, is a paid up member of the UN. Those emails also belong to me and you. We are justified in asking to look at them as they are our employees. They are supposed to be working on the best interests of the public.

Just as we assume the "corporations, think tanks and pr hacks" are generally not working in our best interest, we assume that publicly-paid scientists are working in our best interest.

The publication of the emails of Jones et al. tells us what they are up to and how they go about their business. They don't tell us directly if they are honest or fraudulent.

The publication of these do, however, highlight what we as individuals consider to be honest or consider to be fraudulent.

If somebody feels that the actions of Jones, Mann and others in the emails are not indicative of any wrongdoing, then we are all privy to the standards of integrity being held by that person.

The same goes for those that think that Jones et al are fraudulent, based on the emails. We get an understanding of their standards of integrity.

Some standards may be high, some may be low. This discussion is quite helpful, however, as from now on and based on what we have posted, we get a measure of where the poster is coming from and we give or take weight from their posting based on this.

I no longer pay attention to the debate....

I'll just wait to see the sea level rise and watch all those waterfront property owners cry, and moan about building at taxpayers expense a sea wall to protect their property; oh and make it see thru so we can still have our view of the ocean!

This spaceship Earth soon will have no human pilots!

Its probably Earth's only chance!

Nature

As others have pointed out, the main point here is that we can not allow our corrupt corporations and oligarchs who control our government to continue to rape the planet for profit and perpetrate the hegemony that makes us live in a world where there is enough room, in Australia alone, for every person on earth to have a 3/4 acre plot to survive on, yet we have the most disgusting corporate crimes and social and ecological injustices currently murdering millions of humans and animals all over the globe.

AGW or not is not the main problem. The main problem is about how we can stop the machine/cut the snake's head off and stop being propelled into a police state as we watch the rise of fascism and the dismantling of the public trust doctrine. We need to figure out as communities how to get off the train.

Copenhagen Climate Summit is niether about protecting the environment nor about addressing the fact that this may be Earth's last chance. Nor is it about addressing the massive ecological and social injustice in the world. It is about the almighty dollar and how the oligarchs can coninue to suck the life out of the planet and make money on environmental degradation without actually changing our society. Society needs to change dramatically, which would be occurring already if free energy science and ancient knowledge were not actively and criminally subverted and discredited by the powers that be. Climate change science has been conducted to match the policy and agenda that has been in place for a very long time.

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/237/Climategate-Why-it-matters.aspx(Featured Article)
The Register | Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context.&...

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/233/Smoking-Gun-Bombshell-UN-Documents-Outline-Plan-To-Use-Climategate-Crooks-In-End-Run-Around-National-Sovereignty.aspx

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/194/Carbon-trading-probably-the-most-profitable-part-of-trading-for-any-of-the-investment-banks-right-now-European-Climate-Exchange-chief-Patrick-Birley-admits.aspx

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/186/2020s-John-Stossel-Rips-Apart-Global-Warming.aspx

plg

Sorry but you've missed the boat along with the rest of scare mongers. It's not the purchases we make or the choices we make or anything like that. It's population density and unless something is done to rein in population growth around the world countries like Canada and Australia might just as well carry on doing what they are doing. Their populations could vanish tomorrow and the effects on climate change would be negligible if any.

It is not so much the amount of CO2 produced per capita as it is the amount that is produced per square kilometre within a country's boundaries that should determine any urgency needed to make adjustments.

Canada and probably Australia, to a similar extent, have been in the vanguard of keeping their population densities low. Whatever the reason the people of both countries do not have to hang their heads in shame because of their energy consumption.

Again, this does not mean that we should not make changes, just that we have time to do things properly and not in a panic. Other countries do not have this luxury such as it is.

Can't make up my mind

I have tried very hard to educate myself on climate change but the BS we are being fed is hard to fight through.
The polar bears are dying....Even the USGS says the historical numbers are meaningless.

South pole is melting.....Yes in the West but growing in the east.

Ocean Temperatures are rising.....nothing I have found proves this.

Global Temperature is rising.......Measuring stations have been moved or overgrown by cities corrupting the data.

Now with the E-mails from East Anglia and they have admitted deleting the original raw data, If that is the case how was Phil Jones findings pier reviewed would you not need the raw data to do a review?

RM

You don't know need the raw data for peer review. The manuscript for publication contains the analyzed and graphed data in next-to-publication form.

The peer reviewers will then go over the manuscript and critique it for data handling/assessment and the conclusions that are drawn from the analyzed data. They never see the raw data unless requested.

Access to raw data was requested of Jones by a Canadian researcher and was always denied by Jones. Every scientific publication has the stipulation that should a reader be critical of your work, or wish to reproduce it, you must present the raw data and techniques if requested to do so. I know. I am in the business.

Peer-review ia a situation where the Editors of a publication will send out the manuscript to other scientists in the same discipline that have sufficient knowledge to make a critical comment on whether or not the paper should be accepted or not and what changes or further experiments should take place for acceptance.

So, if you are a global warmist, you send your paper to a publication that is know to be "friendly" to warmists. If you are skeptical of global warming and your experiments and research leads to findings that support the idea that humans have no impact on the present or future climate, then you can send your paper to anti-AGW publications with anti-AGW editors and peer reviewers.

The problem is, that there are very few anti-AGW publications compared to pro-AGW publications. In a perfect world, all publications and all reviewer should examine the manuscripts with equal and unbiased critical examination. In a perfect world.

The honest truth is, in scientific research, every single one of us seeks out a scientific publisher that we know are the most friendly to our point of view. Within our particular disciplines, we find out by experience what to send to where to get the best chance of publication.

For example, ten years ago, try getting a paper published that demonstrates that, as a rule, ulcers are caused by a bacterium and treated by antacids is counterproductive and antibiotics should be used instead and you would have your paper sent back to you with all kind of snide remarks.

Today, it is accepted fact that a particular type of bacteria causes ulcers.

Go Figure!

The best way to describe the scientific community is as follows:

Go to a Tim Hortons and listen to every conversation at every table. Very diverse, some honest, some dishonest, some petty, some well meaning, some altruistic, some self-serving, some sociopathic.

Now, give them all a PhD and/or MD. It is the same thing.

There no longer is true debate

The debate is over.

Now all one can do is muse on how cleverly a good “friend of science” like “plg" caught naked with your wife in your bed tries to explain it away:

“Jim I challenge you. I’m sure you’ve been with a few of your friends’ wives on occasion.”

“After all Jim, a good friendship requires the examination of seedy behavior from both sides of the friendship.”

“I think the world would be shocked by the contents of your emails, Jim".

“What passes as chaste behavior on your part Jim is for the most part just a strategy to con everyone to distrust me.”

“Jim, we’re just playing around here, nothing serious. Don’t let this one incident ruin all the hard work your wife and I have been doing.”

“Jim, you’re still in ‘denial’. This is not your wife, your bed nor your house. Stop being a ‘skeptic’”

Upon more mature consideration

I found this article to be offensive in light of what we now know through Climategate. The assumption that CO2 can change climate or influence weather is wrong for a number of reasons.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

...and therefore, so is the the rest of the guilt-tripping drivel that follows.

After making giant leaps of logic based on misinformation, this man with a conflict of interest (grants) then goes on to accuse skeptics of "moral negligence" when he is helping to perpetrate a fraud.

The only thing holding up the man-made global warming construct was a short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature. That is now gone. CO2 has continued up while average temperatures declined. We now know they tried to pretend that wasn't happening to keep the gravy train running.
They don't seem to have given a thought to the harm to the the economy or the great suffering and hardship it would cause.

In my opinion Rees should have the good grace to apologize to the rest of us for his past involvement in propagandizing for a scam or at least keep quiet.

Deniers: from Venus or Mars?

Greenhouse future from Earth's sister:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/venus.htm

Can't we all just get along?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ

Venus and water

"When Venus lost its water, it was no longer able to suppress atmospheric CO2 and was doomed to develop an extreme greenhouse effect". From the Earth's Sister link. Maybe maintaining water ecosystems, and quality and quantity and timing of flow, is what we should be preserving and protecting the most. Harper denied Canada and Canadian's our rights to water as a resource, water as a human right, this year, and is taking this position to support NAFTA; to use water as a commodity, exactly like they are currently scheming to use carbon credits as a commodity for Wall Street, IMF, and the Fed to steal out money and rape our land.

even without C02

Even without CO2:

Farming and logging practices have been messing with earth's heating and cooling processes for decades now. The deforestation and devegetation practices carried on by industrial farming and logging are now taking a greater toll than ever. Even if increased CO2 leads to some increased plant growth, we are defoliating the planet at a very high rate. Further, construction, manufacturing, mining, transportation and industrial farming methods send pollutants down the world's waterways and into the oceans. The oceans are dying. Many years have passed since Jacques Cousteau sailed the seas. There came a time where he said that he had eaten enough fish from the ocean. Cousteau said that the oceans were so polluted that there wasn't a fish untainted by human activity. Since then, the oceans have steadily become more polluted with plastics, paints, sewage, fertilizers and pesticides, chemical waste, and whatever that black gooey stuff is in the bilge water that is routinely flushed from the holds of ships. Areas of great dying of sea creatures are growing in size. This causes more pollution as the decomposing bodies of the fish etc. fall to the ocean floor causing more oxygen to be depleted.

As the temperature has risen about 1 degree Celsius, huge amounts of sea and glacier ice has been melting. Until that ice melts, the planet's temperature will not raise much. The hold on the rise in temperature is mitigated by the fact that ice reflects more radiant energy than water. Another huge mitigating factor is that the very process of melting ice at 0 degrees takes 80 times the energy to heat and convert to water than it takes to heat water that is at 0 degrees.

From: College Physics for Students of Biology and Chemistry: Heat

"The latent heat of fusion (freezing) of water is 80 cal / g, and the latent heat of vaporization of water is 540 cal / g at 100 C. Note that the heat added or lost during a phase change does not affect the temperature during the phase change. Icewater is at 0 C until all of the water has frozen; when melting, it is at 0 C until all of the ice has melted. Likewise, water is at 100 C until all the water has boiled away; if the water / steam system is in a closed environment, the steam is at 100 C until the water has all evaporated."

©1996, Kenneth R. Koehler.
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/8c.html

Add to that the CO2 blanket, and we have industrial war waged upon the living things of the earth.

Even without CO2 (cont)

Refute as you may wish, deniers, you must account for all the chemistry, biology and physics of what humans do to the planet before you have any credibility. Every year the waterfront property of mine on the edge of the salt marsh becomes more accessible by boats. People laughed when I didn't pay 10 times as much for the lower lying land that had better ocean access next to mine. That waterfront land is now in trust for my children. Their children will be so pleased that their grandfather had the foresight to get them something of value before it became too costly. Already, the marsh is beginning to erode as the sea now laps at what was flooded but a few times a year only just a few years ago. In 30 years, you deniers will come begging for my children to sell you their land. We'll see who has the last laugh, though any laughing I do will be bittersweet. I truly wish it didn't have to be this way.

dirtmeister you say "1999

dirtmeister you say

"1999 will be the coldest year in the last 30 years"

Don't know what part of the North you are in but I am from west of Prince George, living on the Island now but I talk to family up there all the time and visit fairly often, the winters are a lot warmer then they were when I was growing up there in the 50s and 60s.

Take a look at some of the old photos of Smithers and see how big the glacier used to be, I was still living up there in 99.

The question I have for you global warming critics is what if you are wrong? Many of you seem to be getting your info from sites sponsored by big oil or think tanks like the fraser institute and I think they have their own agenda.

Deforestation could also be contributing to global warming, it is a lot cooler in a forest then out in a clear cut.

I am not sure what to think of climate change but I don’t trust big oil or their paid mouth pieces.

Later.

R/M old man....

Uh, integrity perhaps? Some people actually still believe in that "piffle".

BTW, I do like your fatalistic approach to climate change. Strange though, how an approach like this always underscores the "please, please, let me continue to live the way I have become accustomed to"...........

snert you obviously haven't

snert you obviously haven't been up to the tar sands have you. I work up there and it is not something you can explain you really do have to see for your self.

later.

Ursus

I'm aware of the tar sands. Lots of problems there. None of them unsolvable.

They are, however, one of the areas where Canada could become a leader in cleaner production methods if people would just focus on that instead of how bad things are now.

Another Article On Climategate

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/december-2009/the-meaning-of-motley-cru

If hackers would go so far

If hackers would go so far as to hack who is to say they wouldln't also falsify the emails, do we know they didn't? Just curious.

snert and Realisticman

Climate change deniers are just silly. Hiding one's head in the sand does not mean that one's backside is not exposed for all to see. I must admit that one event like an asteriod hitting the earth or nuclear warfare will have an instintaneous catastrophic consequences; but in terms of the age of the Earth, the effects of climate change at the current rate will cause huge devastation for we humans in less than a blink of an eye were the Earth a mere mortal.

snert

Nothing will be done about the tar sands, it takes political will and neither harper or stelmach are interested in taking on the oil companies even if they had the courage.

So the tar sands problem will not be solved and the oil companies will continue business as usual and any scientist who tries to something will be attacked like Morton.

Follow the money, see who is contributing to the cons.

Ecologist or Sociologist?

Scientists morphing into sociologists attempting to set social policies is what has caused so many to object to the entire, now discredited, AGW scaremongering.

On the up side, we should now dump the IPCC because it's unable to stop pushing an ideology driven by crusading manipulators and, hopefully, the natural changes in climate will be dealt with as they always have - pragmatically.

Now [OFFENSIVE AND DISRESPECTFUL TITLE REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16396

realistically, discredited ideologues

like neo-liberals and denialist astroturfers attempting to block those pragmatic policies that can reduce human-induced carbon-belching will morph into ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMRPKM1evk

... themselves.

For the rest of us, moving into the carbon-free future looks bright:
http://tiny.cc/business332

Hard Facts

In contrast to dirtmeister's fictitious "facts" (1st post) in terms of temperature trends, I would refer to the following links that show both temperatures, temperature deviations, and as one obvious consequence, arctic sea ice extend and thickness.

Seeing proof of global cooling in the data is nothing less than disingenuous cherry-picking or total blindness.

Look at the trends, they are unequivocal. If you don't like temperature readings, then look at some of the temperature changes direct consequences...
How can people have the gut to claim it is cooling??? It is beyond me.

Goddard Institure Data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Wikipedia Summary (and References): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

As for the cherry-picking:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

If Air temperatures are not enough, take a look at
1) the extent of arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure3.png

and 2) the loss of ice-thickness of the arctic sea ice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Sea_Ice_Age2008.png

Urbanity

... contrasts with Obstructionism:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Grumpy old Denialist wishes won't make the science go away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-p51fvYLc&feature=related

R/M old man....

If we are to dump antedeluvian and biased entities, then by all means let us dump Harper too. I don't relish my daughter being kept "barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the kitchen stove".......

Miss Un-aware

"enough land in Australia alone, for every person on earth to have a 3/4 acre plot to survive on"

If you presume that all of Australia is arable land that will support 1 person for each 0.75 acres, you should be in middle school studying rather than debatng climate change.

Rickie, my son

You'd better keep an eye on her. You know how the children always rebel against the old parents and their funny beliefs. She might be under the covers reading Ayn Rand with her LED flashlight.
***

The BBC has asked what people think of this scam. So far they've published over 600 responses.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=7310&start=0&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20091204153802#paginator

This Just In

A peer revue by millions of admittedly young students proves that Santa Claus does exist. An interesting note is that the children of AGW believers say that this year he's wearing nothing but a Speedo and some cool shades. The reindeer have been replaced by a team of Wilderbeest.

Rex Murphy On Climategate

Rex Murphy on Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3-HpSnE9Y&feature=player_embedded

"A bunch of sick psycho-freaks with unlimited financial backing are on the brink of the ultimate power grab."

Couldn't have said it better soleprobe.

It's true, there are huge environmental issues to deal with, but all have paled in the face of this phony climate change debate.

Remember what Zipporah said - saving furry animals, wild rivers and forests is the old war.

Looks like she's just lost the new one.

SharingIsGood

Firstly, I'm not a denier, I'm agnostic in climate change matters.

Secondly, there are lots of perfectly valid reasons to make changes that clean up our act other than panic. Unfortunately alarmists are probably equally incapable of producing meaningful results simply because they focus all their energies in unproductive directions as do deniers.

Thirdly, hiding one's head in the sand is tricky sometimes. There are a lot of alarmist that do just that when they chose to ignore the population issue. Half hidden, half exposed. Watching one event while totally ignoring the other. Now that's silly. They'll eventually wind up looking like flounders, both eyes on the same side of the head.

Ursus

You're absolutely right but that is equally the fault of big money and big environmentalism. Two rather large egotistical forces locked in a battle to the death.

I said it before, there are no unsolvable problems with the tar sands. It will just take the will to make the changes. Sorry but closing them down is not an option, though.

hard facts: the first casualty of war

Given the basic science … that which tries to account for warming and cooling trends … involved in studying global climate trends, it’s surprising that climate change discussions have become so polarized. Indeed, the level of debate, where no debate is necessary, tells us that something beyond global warming or cooling underlies the fervour.

However, when one looks beyond the petty bickering, ad hominems, cherry picking and outright denial of facts, the fact that the arguments have become so polarized is less surprising.

The climate change debates demonstrate what happens when bullying becomes the basic survival technique of those in society that have suddenly found themselves in a great deal of pain. Bullying is used to conceal the anxiety that results when deviant or destructive behaviour is brought into question.

Despite the leaked emails and the claims of the hordes of Tim Ball and Rex Murphy wannabes, there is no grand conspiracy in the science of climate change. But what does exist is a huge segment of society … including some men and women of science … that have suddenly been forced to acknowledge that they are part of the problem. And they’ve also realized that dealing with global climate change requires living with less, a lot less. Not a particularly happy outcome or desirable goal for most folks.

The parallels between tactics used by the defenders of the tobacco industry and those in climate change denial are too obvious. But the sphere of complicity in this debate goes far beyond one or two large cancer promoting corporations and their PR bullies: it encompasses every enterprise that depends upon carbon release to keep themselves and the developed world functioning. The hydrocarbon industry has become the lifeblood of most of humanity.

Just as it’s not too hard to see why so many object to the realities posed by a world where the climate is becoming less hospitable, and hydrocarbon use seems unstoppable, it’s not to difficult to see why psychological bullying is the only tactic available where outright physical aggression would expose these realities. .

The coming decades will be extremely painful for many. Those with the means to avoid the pain … and that not only includes those in denial and the denial industry, but those trying to warn society as well … will not be immune to the social unrest and anarchy that will surely follow on the coat tails of rising sea levels, hurricanes, flooding and increasingly oppressive government policy.

rex

Why would you quote rex he is no expert he is very loud, very biased, very opinionated and if he doesn't like your view point he cuts you off, which is one of the reasons I no longer listen to him.

I see mothers driving their kids to school in hummers which have to be one of the most useless vehicles on the market and I see others driving their kids in hybrids trying to make a difference. The hummer drivers usually look like older preps, all about appearance.

Eventually we will find out which side is right in this debate, I do hope it is the deniers but if they are wrong then they should be held accountable! Very accountable!

I apologize for the multiple posts, using a mac with os 10.4.11 and firefox 3.0.7

Credibility

To debate about proposed solutions to economic, social or environmental issues are one thing but to defend criminal acts are another…. those who do so I simply take note for their loss of all credibility. To defend or cover-up a crime is the same as committing one.

tar sands

I am not for shutting down the tar sands, I make my living up there but having said that I do believe we need to do more to protect the environment and the people in the area.

The lobby act needs to be eliminated if we are to regain control of our country and resources but since that will never happen we are screwed.

It is to easy for the corporations to buy our politicians through lobby firms and political donations, if you doubt this take a look at who contributes the most to gordo and the favours he returns.

Follow the money.

"To defend or cover-up a

"To defend or cover-up a crime is the same as committing one."

You know the supposedly damning Climategate emails were obtained illegally right?

No Grand Conspiracy?

KWD - ". . . there is no grand conspiracy in the science of climate change."

As Climategate seems to indicate otherwise, on what are you basing this statement?

laurentm - Hard Facts?

Here's why. It appears that some of the facts or at least the conclusions drawn from those facts are not quite as hard as first thought. The models didn't predict any cooling trend. Not only that but it now appears that if one set of facts that you have been relying on to build your argument starts to contradict that argument then you can grab another set and blend them in to achieve your desired goal.

So you tell me, laurentm just what facts and which conclusions or climate models should we trust?

Whistleblowers are protected in law.

The damning emails were, quite possibly, an inside job i.e. the work of a whistleblower whose activities are actually protected by law.

KWD A nicely written piece. One comment

It seems that some of the scientists that are AGW believers have also learned and used the tactics of the Tobacco Industry.

And Chris, in a court of law, illegally obtained evidence may be thrown out.

But this is the court of public opinion

Oh Snap!

Those tricky AlGoreithms

So much for certainty

"The damning emails were, quite possibly, an inside job i.e. the work of a whistleblower whose activities are actually protected by law."

Maybe they were. Or maybe they weren't. One thing is for sure, the overwhelming burden of proof the denial camp demands be present in the arguments proving climate change isn't quite such a weighty package when they present their own views, either for the science, or the subterfuge.

Rex Murphy On Climategate

Rex Murphy is just another Canadian going WTF?

Janie Jones

I’m basing that statement on the fact “climategate” isn't about the science behind climate change. This is about folks doing what ever is necessary to avoid changing lifestyles they’ve become accustomed to. That you and others haven't figured that out is telling.

But, I'll bite. What would possibly motivate the IPCC members to gather in secretive enclaves and conspire to raise alarm bells? Notoriety? Glory? Money? To protect their jobs? To publish or perish? To punish the energy hogs and the oil industry? To curry favour with environmentalists?

Those that think there is a conspiracy within the IPCC probably believe GW orchestrated 9/11.

Munk debate -- Lomborg doesn't deny AGW

Anyone interested can watch the recent Munk debate on climate change, with George Monbiot and Elizabeth May versus Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg:
http://www.munkdebates.com/

Lomborg probably swayed many of those in attendance to the "con" side, but it's worth noting that he is not a denier. The only denier on the panel was Lawson. Lomborg (check his website) believes that AGW is real, that it is going to have a major impact, and that we need to address the problem. Where Lomborg disagrees with those on the "pro" side has to do with how we ought to respond to AGW.

Climate change is only a symptom

In the bigger picture the alleged scandal at the University of East Anglia is irrelevant. Climate change is only the symptom of a much more serious problem, and even in the unlikely event that anthropogenic climate change can be credibly disproven, the bigger problem still remains.

The problem with most of the climate change debate is that it stops short of addressing the most serious problem facing humans on this planet.

It should bother all thinking people that the major focus is being placed on climate change without connecting it to the real problem, the root of climate change. This problem is that the human footprint on the planet has grown way too large and is responsible not only for climate change, but also with other pressing issues like loss of biodiversity and a shrinking per capita resource base.

We can not fix the climate change problem without first addressing the problem of over consumption and over production, and addressing those problems must include addressing the problem of the size of the human population and how we are going to bring it in line with safe levels of consumption and production.

I would argue that any climate or other environmental policy that did not contribute to a radical reduction in consumption is a policy contributing to genocide.

Some may be interested in this short paper by William Ruddiman:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

The bigger picture

record: Thanks for the link to the Ruddiman article. As for looking at the bigger picture, you may be interested in this book by Graeme Taylor, which attempts to bring everything together, and which won the Independent Publisher Book Awards Gold Medal for 2009 in the category "Most Likely to Save the Planet":
http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3994

Sauce for the gander.

"This is about folks doing what ever is necessary to avoid changing lifestyles they’ve become accustomed to."

Yep those East Anglia CRU scientists have had it pretty good alright.

Thanks mijnheer

Thanks for the link mijnheer. I haven't seen this one. Lots of good stuff out there to read, and reading it then comparing it to what is being done makes one wonder.

If you haven't read it you might be interested in the Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Progress

Item of interest

This may have been referenced before, but just in case:

"Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Waking Up Canada (YOUTUBE)

mjstewart:"If you presume that all of Australia is arable land that will support 1 person for each 0.75 acres, you should be in middle school studying rather than debatng climate change".

I did not make any statement about arable land. This is your assumption stewie, and it makes an "ass- U -me". Thats right, an ass out of you and me. I was talking square footage. For each person on the planet to have a 3/4 plot it would only take up the square footage of Australia.

We are not overpopulated per say, we have a bunch of rich, white people overconsuming and a bunch of entirely evil corporations/oligarchs raping the planet for profits made off the backs of indoctrinated "good corporate citizens" who ridiculously have blind faith in authority and advertising.

The corporatization of the "green" movement has co-opted the issue and the preplanned corpocracy's "solution" is not a solution at all (carbon credits and debits) but a scheme for making profits from creating a stock market commodity of environmental degradation. Like I said before, it is time for some people to put their tin foil hats back on cause HAARP seems to be affecting your brain wave function!

R/M old man....

She has read all of Ayn's stuff. She thought it a great laugh......

But seriously folks (as they say), does it matter whether climate change in anthropogenic or god-induced? The fact of the matter is, the entire global "civilization" as we know it, has been built during an interglacial warming period. Look how wonky things went with the Little Ice Age, circa 1300-1800.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html
In northern Europe, the Little Ice Age kicked off with the Great Famine of 1315. Crops failed due to cold temperatures and incessant rain. Desperate and starving, parents ate their children, and people dug up corpses from graves for food. In jails, inmates instantly set upon new prisoners and ate them alive.

The Great Famine was followed by the Black Death, the greatest disaster ever to hit the human race. One-third of the human race died; terror and anarchy prevailed. Human civilization as we know it is only possible in a warm interglacial climate. Short of a catastrophic asteroid impact, the greatest threat to the human race is the onset of another ice age.

But of course "we know better". Hah!

Burden of Proof is on Climate Change Skeptics? Nope.

The climate alarmists are the ones making the case that naturally occurring events are being significantly perturbed by human activity.

Thus, the null hypothesis is: Human activity has no significant effect on naturally-occurring climactic events.

The burden of proof lies with those proffering the alternate hypothesis: Human activity does have a significant effect on climactic events.

As we have seen by Jones, Mann and those of their ilk, it seems that unscientific principles and methods were employed in order to drive the data so that it would favour the alternative hypothesis.

So, as much as Mann's "hockey stick" has been discredited, the alteration of data in order to make a non-heating world fit a a heating model is also now discredited.

So. It was a nice try, albeit a crooked one. Therefore, with regards to the work of Jones, Mann and their co-authors and collaborators, including conclusions that they have drawn and presented to the IPCC, the null hypothesis is, in fact, not rejected. Human activity has no significant effect on climactic events.

For the most part, we are back to square one. We do not have to prove that humans are not causing any climate catastrophe. The alarmists do. They are the ones making the case, and they have spent (unethically and criminally in some cases) my good tax money on it.

Now, I do recognize that the "powers that be" and "corporate interests" have a lot of vested interest is promoting "Global Warming". Thus, carbon taxation and rationing and the like will be thrust upon us all.

I am quite Zen about all this and won't lose much sleep over the thought of having governments and non-elected organizations wasting the taxes taken from my income. Such is life. I have more pressing concerns.

However, after seeing confirmation of what I believed to be the case all along.

I am feeling pretty damn smug.

Dr Alexander ... thanks, and I agree

“… AGW believers have also learned and used the tactics of the Tobacco Industry …”

When reason fails, the use of tobacco industry tactics is unfortunate but not surprising. If anything, what this tells me is that the scientific community needs to become more vocal.

But I can understand the reluctance of the scientific community to “out” themselves on issues that reach way beyond Harvie Milk comfort levels. There’s a whack of folks that don’t want to hear the truth … at least not until they’ve covered their ass … and shooting the messengers is their only defence.

It All Depends

Quote: We are not overpopulated per say, we have a bunch of rich, white people overconsuming and....

It all depends on what one thinks that the average consumption level should be. We are not overconsuming if it is agreed that everyone should be consuming at the rate of the average Jordanian or Uzbeki. Those societies are consuming at the global sustainable rate, if not at their local sustainable rate.

Fact is, if we remove the richest and highest consuming societies entirely from the globe, about a billion people, many of the rest would still be overconsuming and the sustainable consumption rate would be only marginally higher than it is now, about 1/5 to 1/4 of the US and Canadian rates of consumption.

At present 2/3 of the world's societies are over consuming the sustainable rate. 50 years ago we had a surplus and no average global over consumption. The biggest factor in the change to an over consuming global human society is that the society has tripled in size.

Climategate

Now that Climategate is finally being covered by the MSM, perhaps the global warming lobbyists (hey, are they really quoting the same scientists who can't predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy?) will finally tone down their rhetoric because, really, they're starting to sound like the Titanic's captain giving lectures to his drowning passengers about the threat to their health from smoking.

The biggest mouthpiece for global warming is Al Gore, who has managed to increase his net worth from $2-3 million when he left the WH to (some estimate) between $2-3 HUNDRED million, some of it from his carbon credit business. It's unfortunate that he will be a no-show in Copenhagen where he was slated to share a grip-and-grin photo op and a pithy comment for a mere $1200 a pop. Perhaps his next blockbuster movie will explore the downside of allowing business and politics to interfere with science.

The CBC's Rex Murphy says it best:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89466/

Something good may yet come from this kerfuffle. There are legitimate concerns about pollution that may finally get addressed once we put this global warming scam behind us and start getting real.

Climategate

"There are a handful of people and organizations who have tried to cloud the debate…. They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign, where they have stolen personal emails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words, and I think this is rather telling…. Those advocating inaction don’t have the science on their side, so they turn to this last minute smear campaign."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/04/press-call-michael-mann-gavin-schmidt-and-michael-oppenheimer-climategat/

"...mined them for single words or phrases..."

Nice try but they're about 2 weeks too late for that excuse.

Next?

"There are legitimate concerns about pollution...."

Yes indeed there are. But to tackle legitimate pollution would lead to a more healthy and robust population. This is not part of their agenda. They want a sick and dying population killed off through diseases, wars, starvation, sterilization, birth control, and cultural extinction. Clean air, water and a chemical free environment do not play into that scheme. However, global impoverishment, through excessive emissions taxes along with the enrichment of the few like Al Gore through carbon trading, certainly does.

for the Record

So Dr. Phil Jones resigned based on, "single words or phrases that can be {were} taken out of context...".

You won't get a job as a spinmeister for a kindergarten class if that's all you can come up with.

"Google": "global warming hoax", Results 1 - 10 of about 13,500,000 for global warming hoax. (0.16 seconds) and neither will millions of others accept it.

Pollution

quote:
"But to tackle legitimate pollution would lead to a more healthy and robust population."

It would also lead to a smaller population since population size itself is a contributor to pollution.

Pollution is not just a result of practices, but also of volume.

The agenda that you criticize is one rooted in the philosophy of free enterprise and growth, and the fallacy that wealth can be created. Those driving that agenda have a bottom line, to accumulate as much as possible.

Al's been Gored

December 4, 2009
"Gore: Forget Copenhagen Global Warming Summit

Al Gore, the Godfather of the Global Warming Hoax has canceled out on the upcoming Copenhagen Global Warming Summit:

Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule."

Perhaps he's changed his schedule to go and visit Dr. Phil Jones and discuss how best to monitor one's Prozac dosage.

Dr. Alexander

To carry this supposition to it's logical conclusion, one must be prepared to insist that NO species whatsoever (and at any time in history) has any significant effect on climactic events.

Googling GW Hoax

I suppose that one could argue that a preponderance of bull shit adds up to not bull shit? I bet that anyone taking a poll in the Middle Ages on whether the Earth was flat or not would have gotten a preponderance of yes answers.

A couple of interesting articles that did come up when so googling a few minutes ago:

"Amid charges of global warming hoax, new warning on climate change

A report Tuesday on the latest climate-change research shows emissions rising quickly and ice caps melting faster than projected. The report comes amid a controversy over hacked scientists’ e-mails that some say point to a global warming hoax. "

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1125/p02s01-usgn.html

"A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in -- it's caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails challenges that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Al Gored

If I were Al I would drop out of the conference, too. It is a diversionary farce, like most government and industry action in this area.

Climate change is merely one symptom of a bigger problem which is over consumption, and focusing on it rather than the root problem is like trying to fix the problem of a ship with growing leaks with more bilge pumps rather than fixing the leaks.

Unbelievable

Many of the above comments are unbelievable. Read this article before you pontificate anymore.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Of the hundreds of scientists who worked on the report, 2 are quoted in the article. The rest are not. Find out what their words mean, read the above article.
Their words do not deny the validity of AGW.
The computer at UEA was hacked. Who did the hacking? Who paid for them to hack these computers? These are very difficult computers to hack so there must be some major computer expertise involved in the hacking.
Why is this been released now, just before the Copenhagen conference? It seems to be very good timing for those AGW deniers and those who sell products that produce GHG's.

record

In that case (over consumption) you are admitting that AGW was a diversion. A science research team was used with public funds to try and fight a different battle than that which they worked on. It wasn't the weather, they just don't like people buying all this 'stuff'. No wonder it's been exposed!

Maybe Al canceled Copenhagen because he realized that his jet's flight plan was to take him through the UK on a re-fueling stop and he's afraid of being arrested and charged there being a co-conspirator in a public funded research project.

Maybe Al has an conflicting appointment at the Apple Store to have his hard-drive purged.

Maybe Al is off to get in a bit of skiing at Whistler before it all turns to desert and becomes infested with rattlers.

No Hope

Don't try and blame the whistle blower for exposing a scam. The guy has blown his academic career and resigned!

Erin Brockovich did it.

A question for climate change deniers:

What kinds of evidence, what quantity of it, and what degree of disinterest (meaning lack of personal gain involved for the gatherers of said evidence) would move you to ponder questioning your beliefs regarding climate change?

Diversion

Focusing on AGW without looking at the greater issue which is how total consumption by humans affects not only GW but most of our other environmental problems, is a diversion away from the greater issue.

It is the use of climate change, not the fact of it that is the diversion, and many of the solutions to climate change that the deniers object to are by themselves a diversion unless they acknowledge their limits and the fact that they are only a small part of the solution, not the solution.

Media shows like Copenhagen are nothing more than a circus. Even James Hansen does not support them.

If the solutions being proposed for Copenhagen dealt with reducing consumption and production, and a global policy on reducing birth rates far below replacement, it would be something worth giving consideration to.

Climat deniers kin to Birthers :)

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/03/climategate-conspiracy-birthers/

realisticman

Thanks for injecting an attempt at some humour.

Janie Jones

Whats with the rhetoric, you say "As Climategate" and then here "The damning emails"

Climategate and damming emails? You sound like one of those talking heads at the fraser institute the corporate sponsored think tank, the c.f.i.b. or the taxpayers all of whom we can thank for increased taxes as gordo offloads onto us!

Renaissance Renegades

Criminally negligent- I'd think the editor of Tyee should challenge the writer for using such a legal term in such a broad and incorrect fashion. Do you seriously think that such scare tactics will win supporters for the case of man made climate change.

The believers of this ridiculous theory- man made climate change, are like the dangerous zealots during the Inquisition. Squashing and dismissing any contradictory evidence as the blasphemy of deniers. No wonder half of the population is skeptical.

Climategate has exposed the whole movement as a fraud, perpetuated by scientists who want to keep the gravy train of research money steaming ahead. Of course, it's not surprising that the zealots on this site condemn this revelation as a conspiracy or denigrate it as a minor event. If any of you would care to do a search, you would find some truly disheartening evidence.

Common sense observations can even challenge the climate models. Indeed, daily weather forecasts are often incorrect so how can any model predict global weather conditions? And even the fanciest computer programmes can't predict the stock market. So there's something suspect about the verity and veracity of the climate change group.

Climate change is appearing to be one of the greatest and most expensive frauds foisted on mankind. Let's hope that common sense prevails and relegates it to the dustbin of history.

Common Sense

Common sense observations include looking at the 10,000 year trend in GHG concentrations and average temperature, and correlating them to developments and growth in human society.

Common Sense. eh?

For those who didn't bother to read the article that I linked to previously.

"The CRU scientists decided to simply stop using the inconveniently non-warming tree-ring data after 1960, and splice the modern thermometer-based temperature readings instead, using statistical methods to smooth out and conceal the transition. In one email, this is discussed as a “trick” developed by Michael Mann, one of the creators of the infamous climate “hockey stick chart,” that would “hide the decline” shown by the tree rings and emphasize the recent spike in thermometer data, preserving the sanctity of the hockey stick. One problem with this is, if the tree rings don’t accurately reflect temperatures since 1960, why should we believe they accurately reflected temperatures in the past? If temperatures could diverge now, couldn’t they have equally diverged in the medieval warm period of 1,000 years ago? If so, current temperatures could be historically unremarkable, cutting away one of the key rationales for blaming human greenhouse gas emissions for recent climate changes."

Common sense might have worked in the past but now all data is suspect.

Al Jazeera English

has a good sample of videos from Haiti, Bangladesh, and other places around the world which illustrate quite adequately how human activities affect nature.

Much of the coastline of India used to be sandy beaches 90 metres wide. Because of sea level rise, those beaches now are disappearing. Bangladesh is losing its territory to eroding seas, and the invading salt water is also destroying crops there. And salt from the Aral Sea, carried by desert winds, ends up on the Himalayan glaciers making them melt faster. In Kenya, livestock is dying because of drought and women walk all day to find water and retrace their steps next day.

The problem is worldwide, not local. And if mankind is not causing it, mankind is certainly suffering because of it. Deniers, sitting pretty, spouting nonsense about the taxes they might have to pay to alleviate that suffering, make me sick.

fear and ignorance... essential

AGWarmers rely solely on fear and ignorance. I detect no fear or ignorance here.

McIntyre & McKitrick

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canadians+centre+climate+change+furore/2306939/story.html

More on Climategate

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

Tempest In A Teapot

Quote:
McIntyre -- despite the demonization of him by his opponents -- said he really doesn't know what to think.

"I honestly don't know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem," he said. "And I don't think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem."

------------------

Ergo, using the precautionary principle we have to assume that it is until definitely proven otherwise.

Quote:
I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s--as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated,....

--------------------

Of course now it turns out that maybe they were not overestimated at all, only off in their timing. With almost 7 billion people it has become obvious that the human impact on the planet is changing it considerably, and destroying its ability to sustain human society in it present form.

Of course, what can you expect from someone at the American Enterprise Institute whose purpose is spin and propaganda. I am surprised he didn't tie in Obama's missing birth certificate. :)

All of this, of course, is an engineered controversy to move attention away from the bigger problem of over consumption and environmental degradation that is happening regardless of climate change.

Do climate change deniers = clowns?

It's difficult to determine if the climate change deniers are liars, willfully ignorant of reality, just stupid, or simply scared shi7less and glued to Big Oil public relations ideology like bedbugs to a bar of damp Ivory soap. Buy little consumers buy! Get them SUVees rollin l'il doggies.

Probably some collection of all of the above.

What is certain is that climate change deniers are profoundly ignorant of science and scientific methodology, and are burdened and overweight with rhetoric and anorexic of real-world, verifiable evidence. They also have a lot of facts just plain wrong.

Just one point of fact: Jones did not step down, resign, or retire, nor did he get fired. He stepped aside so as to not impede the investigation. At this point in time he still holds his position; he has, as it were, prorogued himself.

C'mon little bunnies. If you're going to just make it up as you go along, at least try for something that cannot be debunked in less than ten seconds.

I would post some links, but it is abundantly clear that climate change deniers simply do not, will not, cannot peruse data that provides evidence that could, at the very least, allow them to question the absolute inerrancy of their somewhat fanatical and faith-based claims.

Roll on little cataclysms, roll on.

R/M old man....

Read SicPreFix post just above. Bet'cha wish you were on "our side" now, don't ya?

It's like that "Red Rover" game, when no one picks you, except by default.

Excellent video punctures "conspiracy" balloon

This calm smackdown of the denialist frenzy over the hacked e-mails is worth a few minutes of your time.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacked.php

SicPreFix

Do you call East Anglia home? Kinda sounds like it.

More coverage

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/05/climategatewatergate-redux-break-ins-reported-at-another-top-climate-research-center/

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=566&Itemid=1

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=562&Itemid=1

Quote:
The new report says concentrations of greenhouse gas are at their highest levels ever recorded, Arctic sea ice is disappearing 40-per-cent faster than projected just two years ago, and the rate of sea level rise from warming oceans is 80-per-cent faster than predicted in 2001.

These findings appear to present an overwhelming rebuttal to recent claims by climate change skeptics that, based on allegedly stolen e-mails from researchers at England's University of East Anglia, some sort of global conspiracy is underway to fabricate evidence of climate change.

Weaver said the controversy has obscured the fact that two other independent sets of data -- both produced by researchers based in the United States -- show that, if anything, the British data is underestimating the severity of the situation.....

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fight+future+begins/2306957/story.html

record

The article in The Sun points to a study that BC Hydro is participating in where 20 years of satellite data is being used to quantify the obvious retreat of glaciers. 20 years is not really enough to establish a long term trend and there have been a lot of these studies that rely on newly acquired satellite data that is getting thrown into the mix. There could be lots of short term trends that get missed by data smoothing. I don't think all the evidence is out there one way or the other.

FWIW there is evidence of glacial retreat to current levels and beyond.

http://www.physorg.com/news112982907.html

Why doesn't somebody dedicate a tide gauge somewhere in BC so we can see for ourselves that sea level is rising? Shouldn't cost a whole hell of a lot.

Step away from the computer Mr. Jones

SicPreFix reminds us that:

"What is certain is that climate change deniers are profoundly ignorant of science and scientific methodology, ..."

Truth hurts, I guess. This is just more spin trying to maintain the 'two camps' position. Those for and those against. Is this the point? Maybe to those that cling to the baloney that was mangled into nice bite-sized, easy-to-swallow ideological pap that the enviro-anti global horde was slurping up. But was it science? Well, now we know that at its best is was science-lite, at its worst sham science and increasingly it looks like is really wasn't science, just another social policy with a science-looking wrapper.

Truth got the Cold Shoulder

"In one e-mail, Prof. Jones wrote that climate skeptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

Prof. Jones wrote of efforts to deter skeptics from having access to data: “We will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” In another, he asks that several of his colleagues “delete any e-mails” about their work on the IPCC's 2007 report.

That sort of language has led many people, including climate scientists, to worry that the scientific findings of the centre have been undermined by scientists who see themselves as activists trying to prove a case rather than impartial arbiters of scientific fact.

Prof. Hulme leads a group of CRU scientists who believe that the extraordinary political importance placed on their research, and the activist, ideological way that research has been used by the IPCC, has put scientists in the position of being the authors of policy – a position that distorts the role of science in society.

“If we simply believe that science dictates policy, then I'm afraid we're living in an unreal world,” Prof. Hulme said. “If people are arguing that science policy should flow seamlessly from the science, then science becomes a battleground, where people start saying that we must get the science on our side. We have lost an openness and a transparency that leads to good science.”

Prof. Hulme is one of several scientists calling for the raw data of climate-change research to be made available to everyone, including climate-change skeptics, on the Internet. That, he says, would allow genuine research to proceed unhindered. Some of his colleagues also say the IPCC now does more harm than good and should be disbanded.

That position has led some of his colleagues to attack him. This week, several said in Internet posts that such transparency would be unworkable because the matter of climate is too urgent and the stakes too high to allow skeptics to have any influence on policy.

That, Prof. Hulme said, is exactly the attitude that led to the sort of questionable practices chronicled in the CRU e-mails."

from Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail reporting from Norwich, England.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/breach-in-the-global-warming-bunker-rattles-climate-science-at-the-worst-time/article1389842/

Tragically these IPCC sociologists have now badly stained the science community because they pretended to be scientists, or they were scientists once then morphed into social engineers once inside the university, then acted as moles instead of moving to the social studies faculty.

Their actions will probably spill over causing less work and regulations to be implemented for pollution controls and reductions.

Silly scientists

Quote:

That position has led some of his colleagues to attack him. This week, several said in Internet posts that such transparency would be unworkable because the matter of climate is too urgent and the stakes too high to allow skeptics to have any influence on policy.

That, Prof. Hulme said, is exactly the attitude that led to the sort of questionable practices chronicled in the CRU e-mails."

-------------------

Hulme is right. At what is there to fear? Using the precautionary principle, which we should do, would mandate that the skeptics point be considered irrelevant until it could be proven that definitely there is no human influence on globabl warming.

The road of disinformation wanders ever on and on.

No, snert, I do not call East Anglia home. I call New Westminster BC home.

Appended here is a link to some more rational, reality-based, evidence-backed discussion about how false are the claims of a great conspiracy of fabricated climate change (rolls eyes at the gaggle of panicky ostriches). The article even includes additional links to yet more information.

I know it is extremely difficult for you deniertards to read comprehensively, or to read anything beyond Big Oil public relations propoganda and feel-good deceit (gotta keep then SUVees rollin Bubba), hell, by the evidence of this line of comments it looks like you have trouble reading anything beyond Dick and Jane readers; nonetheless, give it a try. Honest information, as opposed to deceptive propoganda and corporate-backed dis- and misinformation, can only make you stronger, wiser, and just plain more informed.

I don't know why you deniertards are so much like theists: "I don't wann know anything true and real" cries the theistic denier. Anyway, reading some real-world information really doesn't hurt.

1. boingboing: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/25/more-insight-on-thos.html#more

RickW

Yes, you're quite right. Mea culpa. I'm sorry. But I get so darned frustrated reading these climate change deniers. It's like arguing evolution with a Creationist, or herd immunity and logic with an anti-vaccinationist.

You kind of get to expecting someone to dance in chanting wooly mantras, shaking their crystals, and telling us it's all Gaia getting her own back at us. I mean, sheesh!

I am intolerably impatient with willful and intentional ignorance and stupidity. It's a stupid flaw that weakens my argument, but it's just so damned hard to hold back sometimes.

Some things to read

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

mijnheer

Thanks for that. That's first rate. A really excellent expose of the tricks of the trade of the neodumb numpties.

No doubt the deniertards will deny it too.

/rolls eyes at denier Ostrichism and intentional and willful ignorance, distortion, and misinformation.

Blabbering McExperts and febrile nitwits indeed! Ha, ha, ha.

In fact, it's so good I'm going to post that link again:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacked.php

Hazza!

Hmmm?

Kinda sounds like you're describing those responsible for the misuse of data that spawned climategate.

Your link appears to lead to the left wing equivalent to good old Rush. Equally as annoying and in some cases equally as ready to jump to the wrong conclusions.

Climate change bullies vs climate change deniers, they should both be locked in a room somewhere and let the rest of us sort this out rationally which, BTW, is not currently being done.

Climate Change

is an undeniable fact of life. It happens all the time. Once upon a time there was an ocean rolling over what is now the Great Plains of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Once upon a time, those provinces (and much of Canada were covered by glaciers. During that time, a land bridge from eastern Asia reached western North America, allowing migration of the Asiatic ancestors of both Americas to occupy two continents.

All of which proves that we human beings can adapt to whatever Gaia (or Mother Nature, or God - your preference acknowledged) chooses to throw at us.

But we are therefore responsible for the ways in which we ourselves also make choices. When unlimited options are available, denial of choice can be one of those options. When the options become "Do something now" or "Do something later" or "Do nothing" then denial is no longer an option that can be considered rational.

The concern now is the acceleration of "change." The nature of temperature (a widely fluctuating
variable), pressure (an almost constant variable) and change of state (from solid to liquid) makes H2O into the agent of change. What was a linear progression becomes exponential as temperatures rise. There can be no argument about the reality of the rise because glacial ice (the source of most of our fresh water) is demonstrably melting wherever it exists around the world. And melting faster than it used to as glaciers become smaller.

Since fresh water turns easily from liquid state to gaseous state (water vapour) there is naturally more rain and snow precipitated out, allowing deniers to look from their windows and proclaim AGW to be fictitious.

The time that is left for us to act is shrinking faster than those glaciers.

Not Quite

Quote:
All of which proves that we human beings can adapt to whatever Gaia (or Mother Nature, or God - your preference acknowledged) chooses to throw at us.

-------------------------------

Actually, not. It proves that the planet and its environment changes. It doesn't prove that any species will survive that change. It is possible to change the planet to an environment that will not support humans or other mammals or whatever. It is probable that we are changing it so that we can not support the species in the way that we have been recently. The longer that we fail to deal with change, the less control we will have over what kind of an environment our descendants will live in.

HealthCare or HealthScare???

As a 46 yr old woman and cancer survivor; I can tell you that all those 'Stop Breast Cancer' stickers all over the very dirty car locusts; now hitting BC..

HINT: THEY DO NOT WORK..

And that these commodities; it's only a matter of time before it will also take your hand..

FYI

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/07/climategate-american-meteorological-society-reaffirms-warming-humans-have-significantly-contributed-to-this-climate-change/

My Point, Record,

maybe not expressed concisely, is that the acceleration of climate change leaves no time for any option except "Do something now!"

Deniers can scream bloody murder (otherwise known as Climategate) all they want. The world as we know it will not continue to exist much longer because global warming is an exponential progression, not linear.

H2O stays a solid material from -20C to -10C and from -10C to -01C, but it only takes two more degrees of warmth to allow it to change to a liquid form. Low temperatures and high temperatures are both deadly to unprepared lifeforms, including humans.

Climate change happens quickly.