Global Warming Farce exposed for the farce it is.

[Elephant Walk]

So a few hackers decided to hack the British Climate Research center at University of East Anglia and found alot of substitution of data, bad data, suppression of truth as well as their own doubts of truth.

Good stuff.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...ce-conspiracy/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

[Elephant Walk]

No comments on the farce?

[MysticCat]

Not sure there's much to comment on.

I've got no problem with actual scientific debate on global warming. But hackers leaking some emails from a relatively few people doesn't prove much of anything -- it certainly doesn't prove (or disprove) whether global warming is occuring.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've got no problem with actual scientific debate on global warming.

I take it you didn't read the articles. It's clear there's no "actual science" involved.

But hackers leaking some emails from a relatively few people doesn't prove much of anything --

Uhm, the University of East Anglia is perhaps the premier research organization on climate change. Many facts that are commonly cited on the debate were created by the scientists at this University. Furthermore, the scientists were finding "Climate decline" instead of increases, but chose to suppress the evidence in favor of climate increase.

it certainly doesn't prove (or disprove) whether global warming is occuring.

It doesn't, but it definitely sheds light on the business.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I take it you didn't read the articles. It's clear there's no "actual science" involved.

I read two of them. One link didn't work. To be honest, the article from First Things (which I generally like) read to me like it was from The Onion. And with Fox I consider the source (just as I would with MSNBC or numerous other outlets).

I don't think the conclusion you've drawn is at all clear unless you want to find it there. It's just way too broad a characterization to say that what's reported in those articles shows that global warming is a farce. It's kind of the equivalent of exposing some Bible scholars -- put them at the Vatican or at Oxford, if you like -- who are trying to hide "real facts" and saying that you've exposed the Bible or Judaism or Christianity as a farce or hoax. Sort of a Dan Brown approach.

Maybe this points to something bigger, or maybe it's nothing more than some (allegedly) unethical scientists who are still nevetheless right about global warming, despite their lack of ethics.

It's the sensationalism of headlines like "farce exposed" that make me think thoughtful comments are not necessary because only reflexive comments are sought.

[dreamseeker]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's the sensationalism of headlines like "farce exposed" that make me think thoughtful comments are not necessary because only reflexive comments are sought.

which is why i (and prolly most people on GC) did not even bother responding.

[AGDee]

I'll add some thoughtful comments. My take on pollution/man made global warming is this: Whether these forms of pollution actually cause global warming is controversial and difficult to prove. However, the cancer rates and asthma rates in areas with high pollution are very high and, I will never believe that the orange smoke that comes out of one of the factories between my house and my work could be anything but unhealthy to breathe. Have you ever gotten a big breath chock full of car exhaust by accident? It's awful. It can't be healthy. Whether we're causing global warming or not, we've banned second hand smoke in many public places, but our air quality laws became more lax under the Bush administration. I don't want to keep breathing that crap, whether it causes global warming or not. The fewer chemicals we put into the air, the better, for our health.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'll add some thoughtful comments. My take on pollution/man made global warming is this: Whether these forms of pollution actually cause global warming is controversial and difficult to prove. However, the cancer rates and asthma rates in areas with high pollution are very high and, I will never believe that the orange smoke that comes out of one of the factories between my house and my work could be anything but unhealthy to breathe. Have you ever gotten a big breath chock full of car exhaust by accident? It's awful. It can't be healthy. Whether we're causing global warming or not, we've banned second hand smoke in many public places, but our air quality laws became more lax under the Bush administration. I don't want to keep breathing that crap, whether it causes global warming or not. The fewer chemicals we put into the air, the better, for our health.

^^^This. I am not a scientist, and I know this. Everything I do know about science tells me that climate change is real, but I am not a scientist. However, through my own observation, I know that good air is better than bad air - that is obvious, regardless of whether it impacts the weather.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'll add some thoughtful comments. My take on pollution/man made global warming is this: Whether these forms of pollution actually cause global warming is controversial and difficult to prove. However, the cancer rates and asthma rates in areas with high pollution are very high and, I will never believe that the orange smoke that comes out of one of the factories between my house and my work could be anything but unhealthy to breathe. Have you ever gotten a big breath chock full of car exhaust by accident? It's awful. It can't be healthy. Whether we're causing global warming or not, we've banned second hand smoke in many public places, but our air quality laws became more lax under the Bush administration. I don't want to keep breathing that crap, whether it causes global warming or not. The fewer chemicals we put into the air, the better, for our health.

Absolutely. Fixing global warming has huge direct benefits. While carbon doesn't really hurt us, it has other environmental consequences such as increasing the acidity of the ocean, which has been shown to decrease the chances of some fish getting away from predators.

I don't know about y'all, but I could definitely stand to breathe less sulfur, etc.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Absolutely. Fixing global warming has huge direct benefits. While carbon doesn't really hurt us, it has other environmental consequences such as increasing the acidity of the ocean, which has been shown to decrease the chances of some fish getting away from predators.

I don't know about y'all, but I could definitely stand to breathe less sulfur, etc.

Too early on a Monday for me to say anything except co-sign.

[DrPhil]

Co-sign MysticCat, dreamseeker, AGDee, Soror Ren, and Kevin.

[Ghostwriter]

To put multi billions of $$$ into a effort such as Cap and Trade when it is now being shown that the science may have been faulty at best and fraudulent at worse would be a "crime". Clearing up pollutants such as sulphur etc. is a different task then trying to reverse what may be the natural progression/variance of Earth's temperature. I would bet that the Sun (via Sunspot activity) may have more of an effect on global temperature variations than what we humans can possible achieve via carbon dioxide emissions.

[Kevin]

Sorry, but even if you completely ignore climate change, excessive carbon has been shown to have deleterious effects on both flora and fauna. The only questionable aspect of cap and trade is that it is a pretty useless and expensive policy without the full cooperation of the rest of the world. With both India and China ramping up their capacities to pollute, I question whether cap and trade or any single-country environmental reform can have any sort of significant environmental impact whatsoever.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

To put multi billions of $$$ into a effort such as Cap and Trade when it is now being shown that the science may have been faulty at best and fraudulent at worse would be a "crime". Clearing up pollutants such as sulphur etc. is a different task then trying to reverse what may be the natural progression/variance of Earth's temperature. I would bet that the Sun (via Sunspot activity) may have more of an effect on global temperature variations than what we humans can possible achieve via carbon dioxide emissions.

Would you really "bet" that? Because millions of anti-Global-Warming political, social and scientific minds would love for that to be the case, and NONE can prove to any degree that climate and environment changes (such as melting polar ice caps, glacier loss, ocean temperatures, increased tornado activity, etc.) are naturally occurring or are in any way part of a "natural cycle".

Sure, science can't prove exactly how global climate is being affected by man. However, we can't hand-wave away changes - seriously. Do we really think that nature is some sort of magic sponge that can soak up man's activities, no matter how destructive? I'm fine with claiming some of the more extreme members of the scientific community aren't worth listening to, but that's the truth regardless of which direction their views may skew. Cap-and-trade has problems of its own, but none are really related to global warming - it should be judged on its own merits, and not the demerits of a few agenda-driven douche bags (on either side).

Just because we can't currently understand the mechanism, that doesn't mean nothing is happening. And just because a group of researchers spent a lot of time using charting techniques and data manipulation to make their findings look better doesn't mean the entirety of global climatic change is in any way a farce.

[Ghostwriter]

^^^ I agree with your assertion that India and China will continue to contribute tremendously to the carbon output. I also agree that there is nothing we can do to change their direction. Cap and trade is ill conceived and will only further damage our economy while the developing nations continue along their merry way.

On another point. I am not so sure that we could change the climate if we wanted. I am of the opinion that any warming or cooling is more due to the natural trends in nature and specifically the Sun. My sneaking suspicion is that this whole thing is a money making scam. It appears that people such as Al Gore and his ilk stand to make bundles from the sales of carbon offsets and credits. Kind of reminds me of derivatives and junk bonds. Guess I am a little bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the global warming debate.

Does anyone remember Red Dye # 2, alar, chlorfloro carbons, freon, DDT, etc.?