Climate Gate

[Sabre]

I was listening to a science show where they talked about climate gate and the recent report that everything is fine and climate gate didn't really happen, case closed, everyone applauds. So that's it? Climate gate was a hoax, or at least not as bad as the denialists claim right?

Well, in the past when these kind of reports came out known BS like homeopathy or psychics they claim the investigators were biased, the report was wrong and a report on the report was needed.

As for global warming and climate gate itself? I don't care. Real or not, the current system is hippy bollocks combined with the recession means we're not going to be doing anything about anytime soon. Not until this hippy fad is over and we can get some real win-win solutions going without stupid pagan morality about trees crying or whatever.

My issue is the huge hypocrasy of my love that is science. The community is just as hyporcritical and idealogically based as the woos they fight against. That's not on imo.

[Kursed]

global warming is just a hoax to push people into going green the problem with Going green is it is expensive.

[Guest FoXXX]

Global warming my ass

["User"]

Nothing but a hoax IMO.

With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, who those facts come from and how they are interpreted.

A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy.

Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical, but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even between the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:

Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.

- Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.

- Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.

- Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.

- Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.

- Ice-age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!

- Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.

- Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.

- In the 1970’s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.

- The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

- This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.

- The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.

While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.

They really need to spend more of their money on fixing the economy and stop with this charade.

global warming is just a hoax to push people into going green the problem with Going green is it is expensive.

Not only is it expensive but the technology isn't practical yet.

[Kursed]

Yes Solar panels  are too inefficient to do anything within the atmosphere  they are best used in space for now where there is no air particles to block the sunlight but even so they still need HUGE panels to charge the ISS batteries (International Space station)

if people ar soo worried about going green why not spend money on green research?

wind turbines i'm not sure about the details.

other methods i'm also not sure about.

An what the crap is this about Methane being a  global warming gas?

[Guest FoXXX]

Wow, good read.

[Asper Sarnoff]

I hate having to play second-tune and agree with opinions allready posted, but User worded my thoughts exactly here. Well done.:yes:

[Guest Julius Quasar]

global warming is just a hoax to push people into going green the problem with Going green is it is expensive.

Agreed.

Global warming my ass

Speaking of which...*Cuts a tremendous fart* 

Nothing but a hoax IMO.

With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, who those facts come from and how they are interpreted.

A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy.

Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical, but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even between the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:

Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.

- Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.

- Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.

- Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.

- Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.

- Ice-age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!

- Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.

- Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.

- In the 1970’s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.

- The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

- This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.

- The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.

While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.

They really need to spend more of their money on fixing the economy and stop with this charade.

Not only is it expensive but the technology isn't practical yet.

Totally.  Up your ass with broken glass Al Gore, you and your lame-ass "crockumentary"!

I hate having to play second-tune and agree with opinions allready posted, but User worded my thoughts exactly here. Well done.

I concur!

[Robert Monroe]

Don't know what "Climate Gate" is, and I really don't care.

But I do beleive that humans have a hand global warming. I also beleive the world goes through natural hot and cold cycles (See: Medieval Warm Period and Little ice Age), too. That all said, I don't see why everyone is so ADAMANT about resisting climate change. I mean, hello, humans are the ONLY species who can give the big "fvck you" to natural selection, and it works BOTH ways in our hand. We have a unique gift to alter the world, for better AND for worse. 200 years of irresponsible, shortsighted spam of fossil fuels, I am certain has left an effect on the world. Now, how BIG that effect is, I don't know, but I honestly don't see how that's relevant. Animals are dying, natural wonders being destroyed, and enviroments going batshit insane, and we could potentially fix that. I find it lazy and irresponsible to just sit on our asses and go "hurfdurf its mother nature's way", and then continue to use increasingly obsolete fuels that do to some degree or another, change the enviroment. No, anything we do will not have an immedeate, short term result. No, we probaly will not live to see the long term result. Yes, there is a possibility all our effort could just backfire in our faces 200 years down the road. But to let that stop us is just making excuses, is lazy, and is untrue to the human spirit. We were meant to change things, to see what can and can not be done, it is what we have ALWAYS done.

Besides, if photosynthetic cyanobacteria can convert CO2 into oxygen and cause a global cooldown, I think mass consumption of fuels producing CO2 can cause a global heatup. Living things CAN and DO make a difference.

["User"]

Don't know what "Climate Gate" is, and I really don't care.

For the record it's a reference or similarity to the whole Watergate scandal back in the 70's. The Watergate scandal left such an impression on the national and international consciousness that many scandals since then have been labeled with the suffix "-gate".

[Robert Monroe]

For the record it's a reference or similarity to the whole Watergate scandal back in the 70's. The Watergate scandal left such an impression on the national and international consciousness that many scandals since then have been labeled with the suffix "-gate".

I know that much, I mean is there a specific instance of climate debate I need to know about here, or is this a climate topic as a whole?

[Sarita]

I agree with everything Robert said. He put it a lot better than I could have, myself.

BTW, Kursed, I know a restaurant that uses wind turbines as their primary (if not only at this point, I can't remember) source of power. Of course, it's Lulu Buffet's restraunt, so she could afford them,  but she has three wind turbines, and they're apparently VERY efficient. She bought them from the power company, and as far as I know, she doesn't have to pay them any more, because she bought the turbines from them? I forget, really.

["User"]

I know that much, I mean is there a specific instance of climate debate I need to know about here, or is this a climate topic as a whole?

Nah, this is about climate change has a whole.

[Robert Monroe]

Nah, this is about climate change has a whole.

Ah. Well I stand by my original post then: its happening, how its happening we don't know, claiming none of it is our fault is ignorant, and if we have the ability to do good for the planet, we should at least TRY, to do otherwise is lazy and irresponsible.

[Kursed]

Ah. Well I stand by my original post then: its happening, how its happening we don't know, claiming none of it is our fault is ignorant, and if we have the ability to do good for the planet, we should at least TRY, to do otherwise is lazy and irresponsible.

Then whos suppose to tell the darn people who make the green stuff to make it better and for that matter pratical?

[Sabre]

Nah, this is about climate change has a whole.

Climate gate was a scandle where scietists working for the iccp were found to be rigging and destroying data to make it look like it was happening. Basicly, anything that shows it's not happening they were destroying, the investorgation into it revealed that was not the case, but see the first post.

Also, the 1% argument doesn't matter because even small amounts of something can be bad.

Don't know what "Climate Gate" is, and I really don't care.

But I do beleive that humans have a hand global warming. I also beleive the world goes through natural hot and cold cycles (See: Medieval Warm Period and Little ice Age), too. That all said, I don't see why everyone is so ADAMANT about resisting climate change. I mean, hello, humans are the ONLY species who can give the big "fvck you" to natural selection, and it works BOTH ways in our hand. We have a unique gift to alter the world, for better AND for worse. 200 years of irresponsible, shortsighted spam of fossil fuels, I am certain has left an effect on the world. Now, how BIG that effect is, I don't know, but I honestly don't see how that's relevant. Animals are dying, natural wonders being destroyed, and enviroments going batshit insane, and we could potentially fix that. I find it lazy and irresponsible to just sit on our asses and go "hurfdurf its mother nature's way", and then continue to use increasingly obsolete fuels that do to some degree or another, change the enviroment. No, anything we do will not have an immedeate, short term result. No, we probaly will not live to see the long term result. Yes, there is a possibility all our effort could just backfire in our faces 200 years down the road. But to let that stop us is just making excuses, is lazy, and is untrue to the human spirit. We were meant to change things, to see what can and can not be done, it is what we have ALWAYS done.

Besides, if photosynthetic cyanobacteria can convert CO2 into oxygen and cause a global cooldown, I think mass consumption of fuels producing CO2 can cause a global heatup. Living things CAN and DO make a difference.

The issue is, rather then doing something that is a win win situation, but requires time and research, hippies demand we destory ourselves with ineffective crap NOWNOWNOW! What's needed is a cost benefit analysis (basicly seeing whats worth doing and whats good value for money) and decide that way, but people assume you are putting a price on trees and birdsong ect.

For example. If we were to build the microwave satilite, we'd have abundent, ultra cheap energy, but it would cost way to much to build. ...at present. We need a space elevator and to get that we need reusable shuttles (something that is already working), but that's apparently not good enough for the hippies. Wave generators might also work, but it might ruin the natural look of beaches, so again, not good enough for the hippies.

[Asper Sarnoff]

I know that much, I mean is there a specific instance of climate debate I need to know about here, or is this a climate topic as a whole?

Climate gate was a scandle where scietists working for the iccp were found to be rigging and destroying data to make it look like it was happening. Basicly, anything that shows it's not happening they were destroying, the investorgation into it revealed that was not the case, but see the first post.

This is true. I had the pleassure of reading trough what was written in those Emails, and it was quite frankly disgusting how these people who so many put their faith in were discussing how to present their data in such a way that the common riffraff would conclude with global warming being solely caused by humanity.

Several of these scientists were also in crappy, small wage jobs before the climate debate started to heat up, and it's naturally in their own best interest to create as much hysteria as possible.

[Robert Monroe]

Then whos suppose to tell the darn people who make the green stuff to make it better and for that matter pratical?

You think the steam engine was pratical when it was first invented? Or the car? These items start out as novelties, and they only way they get better is by being used, developed, and improved upon.

The issue is, rather then doing something that is a win win situation, but requires time and research, hippies demand we destory ourselves with ineffective crap NOWNOWNOW! What's needed is a cost benefit analysis (basicly seeing whats worth doing and whats good value for money) and decide that way, but people assume you are putting a price on trees and birdsong ect.

For example. If we were to build the microwave satilite, we'd have abundent, ultra cheap energy, but it would cost way to much to build. ...at present. We need a space elevator and to get that we need reusable shuttles (something that is already working), but that's apparently not good enough for the hippies. Wave generators might also work, but it might ruin the natural look of beaches, so again, not good enough for the hippies.

The impatient "now now now" people just need to sit the fvck down and shut the fvck up and let the scientists do their jobs then. Advancement takes time, and rushing shit for quick, immedeate changes usually don't work.

[Sabre]

You think the steam engine was pratical when it was first invented? Or the car? These items start out as novelties, and they only way they get better is by being used, developed, and improved upon.

Sort of. It's not the use of them that makes them better, it's companies trying to sell them. Currently it is not in their interest.

The other option for improvment (such as cars, trains, planes, ect) is the prize system. This is a detail they tend to leave out at school, but many of the worlds great endevors such as flying or sending a radio message across the atlantic are done for cash. People assume that makes it sound less noble or something. Most motor sports started out as a huge prize you went racing for. These days the prize barely covers the cost of a car.

So, let's say you want to push electric or other type of eco cars as a thing. What you would do is set up a set of rules (must pass MOT, no CO2 emissions) set up the race winning conditions, a prize fund, done. Inventers will enter as it funds them, or they can talk investers into believing they can get an instant return, and thus practical steps are taken to make it more viable.

One such prize example is the randy million doller challenge. Anyone who can prove they have a supernatural power can enter. They work up a ladder of increasingly strict scientific protcal, and if they pass, they get a million dollers. Of course, they all have some excuse for not entering or why their magic powers didn't work.

The most recent example is the X-Prize, which was set up to advance civillian space travel and was a huge success. We have reusable rockets now because of that.

[Robert Monroe]

Sort of. It's not the use of them that makes them better, it's companies trying to sell them. Currently it is not in their interest.

The other option for improvment (such as cars, trains, planes, ect) is the prize system. This is a detail they tend to leave out at school, but many of the worlds great endevors such as flying or sending a radio message across the atlantic are done for cash. People assume that makes it sound less noble or something. Most motor sports started out as a huge prize you went racing for. These days the prize barely covers the cost of a car.

So, let's say you want to push electric or other type of eco cars as a thing. What you would do is set up a set of rules (must pass MOT, no CO2 emissions) set up the race winning conditions, a prize fund, done. Inventers will enter as it funds them, or they can talk investers into believing they can get an instant return, and thus practical steps are taken to make it more viable.

One such prize example is the randy million doller challenge. Anyone who can prove they have a supernatural power can enter. They work up a ladder of increasingly strict scientific protcal, and if they pass, they get a million dollers. Of course, they all have some excuse for not entering or why their magic powers didn't work.

The most recent example is the X-Prize, which was set up to advance civillian space travel and was a huge success. We have reusable rockets now because of that.

My point still stands that shit will not get better, more efficient, and more advanced if we just ignore it. It has to be developed and improved upon. However you reach that goal is another point entirely.

["User"]

But I do beleive that humans have a hand global warming. I also beleive the world goes through natural hot and cold cycles (See: Medieval Warm Period and Little ice Age), too.

I concur.

That all said, I don't see why everyone is so ADAMANT about resisting climate change.

Because, as it stands right now, it's too costly for business and governments (especially since we came out of the biggest recession since the 30's.  People right now want to fix the economy, not throw money into things that right now are either ineffective, or just not practical.  And slightly off topic but IMO governments should be cutting other things (ex. Military spending) and fixing up their economies so they can...you know...maintain things like that. >_>

I mean, hello, humans are the ONLY species who can give the big "fvck you" to natural selection, and it works BOTH ways in our hand. We have a unique gift to alter the world, for better AND for

worse.

No one is denying that, but given the current circumstances it's not the wisest idea right now.

200 years of irresponsible, shortsighted spam of fossil fuels, I am certain has left an effect on the world. Now, how BIG that effect is, I don't know, but I honestly don't see how that's relevant.

Animals are dying, natural wonders being destroyed, and enviroments going batshit insane, and we could potentially fix that. I find it lazy and irresponsible to just sit on our asses and go "hurfdurf its mother nature's way", and then continue to use increasingly obsolete fuels that do to some degree or another, change the enviroment. No, anything we do will not have an immedeate, short term result. No, we probaly will not live to see the long term result. Yes, there is a possibility all our effort could just backfire in our faces 200 years down the road. But to let that stop us is just making excuses, is lazy, and is untrue to the human spirit. We were meant to change things, to see what can and can not be done, it is what we have ALWAYS done.

Over a long period of time I agree with you, but not right now with the technology that we current possess.  Like I said before, it's impractical and with some governments, especially in Europe and the U.S. having record debt to GDP ratios as well as high unemployment (19.5% in Spain? WTF?!) they simply CAN'T AFFORD to throw money at something like this in the short term. I stand by the belief that Climate change should NOT be the top priority right now - getting the economy back on track IS.

Besides, if photosynthetic cyanobacteria can convert CO2 into oxygen and cause a global cooldown, I think mass consumption of fuels producing CO2 can cause a global heatup. Living things CAN and DO make a difference.

But we all know the big question is how much of a difference is it actually making?  No one trusts these climate change scientists anymore after that big email thing got leaked. >_>

[Robert Monroe]

Because, as it stands right now, it's too costly for business and governments (especially since we came out of the biggest recession since the 30's.  People right now want to fix the economy, not throw money into things that right now are either ineffective, or just not practical.  And slightly off topic but IMO governments should be cutting other things (ex. Military spending) and fixing up their economies so they can...you know...maintain things like that. >_>

This is sensible. A magic atmosphere fixing machine does little good if you can't afford to use it, but what I meant about "adamant" are the people who go "BOOOO GLOBAL WARMING IS A FARCE MADE UP BY LIBERALS". I just don't see how someone can be so stubborn on an issue that regardless if it is true or not has the potential to EFFECT THE ENTIRE PLANET, and how they can try and pass it off as political agenda. The issue at stake isn't that global warming is happening or not (because it is), but what we can do about it and how.

But we all know the big question is how much of a difference is it actually making?  No one trusts these climate change scientists anymore after that big email thing got leaked. >_>

I find that to be irrelevant. If there is a risk, it needs to be circumvented and removed, period. Just going "oh we wouldn't have made a difference anyway" is just being lazy. If you have the means to do something, do it. Again, this is the entire planet as a whole we're talking about here.

[Sabre]

This is sensible. A magic atmosphere fixing machine does little good if you can't afford to use it, but what I meant about "adamant" are the people who go "BOOOO GLOBAL WARMING IS A FARCE MADE UP BY LIBERALS". I just don't see how someone can be so stubborn on an issue that regardless if it is true or not has the potential to EFFECT THE ENTIRE PLANET, and how they can try and pass it off as political agenda. The issue at stake isn't that global warming is happening or not (because it is), but what we can do about it and how.

I find that to be irrelevant. If there is a risk, it needs to be circumvented and removed, period. Just going "oh we wouldn't have made a difference anyway" is just being lazy. If you have the means to do something, do it. Again, this is the entire planet as a whole we're talking about here.

Its not a case of is it happening or not, but rather the extent and the cause. Alot of the issues have to do with building houses along the caost. There is a series of castles in wales apparently built on a cliff for no reason, turns out they used to be coastal defences before the sea went down. There is alot of stuff between it and the water now.

Also, simply doing something isnt a great way to get a result. During a house fire, do you escape and wait for the firebrigade, or do you cover yourself in petrol and try to spit it out?

[Robert Monroe]

Its not a case of is it happening or not, but rather the extent and the cause. Alot of the issues have to do with building houses along the caost. There is a series of castles in wales apparently built on a cliff for no reason, turns out they used to be coastal defences before the sea went down. There is alot of stuff between it and the water now.

Also, simply doing something isnt a great way to get a result. During a house fire, do you escape and wait for the firebrigade, or do you cover yourself in petrol and try to spit it out?

Escaping is stil doing something. For your analogy, the people I dislike would be going "there's nothing I can do about this fire" and just sit on their ass and burn to death.

[Sabre]

Escaping is stil doing something. For your analogy, the people I dislike would be going "there's nothing I can do about this fire" and just sit on their ass and burn to death.

Maybe, but the people I dislike (the hippies) are not only covering themselves and others in petrol that would normaly run the fire engine and insist that everyone follow their example as they run in and burn to death. Elsewhere the firemen are completly lost as maps are not eco friendly enough.