Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
steveyfrac

Climate Change: The Debate is Over

21 posts in this topic

In a recent turn of events, A number of emails, documents, and commented source code from climate researchers of at the University of East Anglia have been stolen by a hacker and made public.The emails are between several big names in climate change, and document a number of heinous offences.Things like trying to ensure that papers that question climate change aren't published.Discussing deleting emails and documents to ensure that Freedom of Information requests aren't useful or are denied. A criminal act in the UK.According to the wiki article, "Myron Ebell, the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."The emails are available for public viewing at www.eastangliaemails.com. Hopefully the word documents, and excel spread sheets will be posted soon.While I cannot condone the act of stealing this information, and the hacking that took place it is still shocking to see that the people who are in large part responsible for many of the global warming policies are colluding to stiffle debate, and deny information to others. This is not the behavior of an upstanding scientist on solid scientific ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I cannot condone the act of stealing this information, and the hacking that took place it is still shocking to see that the people who are in large part responsible for many of the global warming policies are colluding to stiffle debate, and deny information to others. This is not the behavior of an upstanding scientist on solid scientific ground.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate is over. We are now in the realm of polemical posturing and management of disinformation. Scientists are fighting above their weight class, and losing, when they enter that realm. The politicization of society's reaction to climate change is, as Dr. Suzuki said on today's CBC radio interview, "and intergenerational crime."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate is over. We are now in the realm of polemical posturing and management of disinformation. Scientists are fighting above their weight class, and losing, when they enter that realm. The politicization of society's reaction to climate change is, as Dr. Suzuki said on today's CBC radio interview, "and intergenerational crime."

It may be more then that. The more I dig into this, the worse it looks.This is from one of the emails."The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."I really dislike when politics and science cross like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's something interesting, in this email here

Phil specifically states he deleted emails, and that he has 'nothing' left.

And then Here claims he has never deleted emails. Interesting. Why delete emails in the first place. And why proceed to lie about it if your intent wasn't immoral, or illegal?

And then here they are specifically asked to delete messages that relate to AR4, which i believe is the IPCC Assessment Report 4. This isn't just immoral... it's reprehensible. What are they covering up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your other similar thread has this story in it already, from last week....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the news media outlets continue publishing stolen private correspondance...YETI, why don't you go over to wordpress.com and start a blog for $5.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate? Flummery. Nothing to see here, people. Move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Here we are ten years later and the debate continues. https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

 

Having lived through the '70s, I can relate to what was said in the article about predictions that sold lots of newspapers but, like the old newspapers, were good for little more than lining birdcages:

I said that one reason to be skeptical about dangerous climate change is that environmental predictions of doom are always wrong.

Here’s a list of predictions made with much fanfare and extensive coverage in the media in the 1970s, when I was young and green, in both senses of the word:

  • the population explosion would be unstoppable;
  • global famine would be inevitable;
  • crop yields would fall;
  • a cancer epidemic caused by pesticides would shorten lifespan;
  • the desert would advance at two miles a year;
  • rainforests would disappear;
  • acid rain would destroy forests;
  • oil spills would worsen;
  • oil and gas would run out;
  • and so would copper, zinc, chrome and many other natural resources;
  • the Great Lakes would die;
  • dozens of bird and mammal species would become extinct each year;
  • and a new ice age would begin;

All these were trumpeted loudly in the mainstream media. Not one of them has come even close to meeting the apocalyptic expectations of their promoters. Sometimes this was because we took action to avert the danger. Sometimes it is because the jury is still out. More often it was because the scare was exaggerated in the first place.

These were later joined by more predictions of doom:

  • sperm counts would fall;
  • mad cow disease would kill hundreds of thousands of people;
  • genetically modified weeds would devastate ecosystems;
  • nanotechnology would run riot;
  • computers would crash at the dawn of the millennium, bringing down civilisation;
  • the hole in the ozone layer would cause blindness and cancer on a huge scale;

Regarding the "consensus" of evidence for climate change:

As the distinguished NASA climate scientist Roy Spencer has written,

“If you fund scientists to find evidence of something, they will be happy to find it for you. For over 20 years we have been funding them to find evidence of the human influence on climate. And they dutifully found it everywhere, hiding under every rock, glacier, ocean, and in every cloud, hurricane, tornado, raindrop, and snowflake. So, just tell scientists 20% of their funds will be targeted for studying natural sources of climate change. They will find those, too.”

Between the alarmists and deniers should be a neutral zone that non-politically linked science can be heard. The polarization that I presently see is non-productive and wasteful, only seeking to "prove" a particular point of view and not improve the actual science or understanding. Today's society seems much more inclined to attempt to shut down opposing messages with volume rather than objective examination of the content.

 

My apologies for inserting my political views in the climate change thread that just got locked.

 

 

Edited by mender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the last part of my post keeps getting the strike-through, tried several times to clean it up with no success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you feel it necessary to resurrect a thread that’s been dormant for 9 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Because, as I started my post with: " Here we are ten years later and the debate continues."

 

Is it against the rules?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO....nothing has changed except the players......and how much they are taxing us to see if money will fix the problem overnight....lol

It's called evolution with a slight bit of help by us.......so unless "us" is planning on dying out, it'll keep on happening. If you think the 3rd world countries are capable of going straight from ox carts to electric vehicles I have some swamp land to sell you....lol

It's called getting better emissions from fossil fuel engines and far better economy from them at the same time......simple right...lol.     We all know they have the 100MPG engines all lined up on shelves gathering dust to make sure we stay hooked on oil by using the gas guzzlers etc.....yep another theory etc etc....where's my foil hat..?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few other things have changed; more predictions that didn't come true to add to the list.

 

I was taught that predictions were a reliable way to determine if the science was understood. If the predictions were wrong, the theory behind them was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Another "prediction" from about ten years ago that was embarrassingly wrong:

https://grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/

 

" That’s right — this grim prediction is optimistic, a best-case scenario. In the next post, I’ll examine why polar bears are likely to go extinct by 2030 if not 2020."

 

That's right, polar bears; you've only got one year left before you're extinct!

Edited by mender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

18 hours ago, darren said:

Why did you feel it necessary to resurrect a thread that’s been dormant for 9 years?

To expand on my answer to your question (which I will take at face value): my son just completed his B.Ed degree and will start teaching in the public system soon. His age group grew up with the GW propaganda being taught as gospel in school. I've been appealing to the training in his first degree (B.Sc) to help him see the difference between actual science and what is being presented as science these days. 

 

A major point that I'm trying to make to him and others is that if the predictions about how the climate should be behaving are shown to be inaccurate and unsupported by current climatic trends, it's the people adhering to their errant beliefs despite what is actually happening that are the climate deniers.  

Edited by mender
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that list is generally a sensationalists idea of promoting the underlying theme..... byt the way, the strike out is a carry over from wherever it was quoted - I could not undo it - the forum strikethrough could be added on top and removed, but not the original strike-through.

 

As long as we don't venture into politics, the thread is ok. Not that I plan to add to it myself beyond this post. Been there, done that. Climate change itself is real - the effects aren't all fully agreed to, nor is the amount if impact that mankind has had on it, or how quick. That said, I think we've contributed to it quite a lot in a relatively short time frame, but not all of that can be undone. The count of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen substantially, and it's generally contributing to a rise in overall temps, and a longer term trend of ice melt in the north. There may be other contributing factors, like acidification of the ocean and why that is happening, etc....

 

I myself have looked at the temps recorded in the north of Canada over the last 40-50 years, and can tell you that we are on average, more than 2c warmer in this decade than in the 70's. That is the trend. As to exactly who or what caused it in what proportion, I am not inclined to say exactly, because I do not know. I and probably everyone reading this thread contributed to it in some way more than likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I added the paragraph and last line; as such that should have been exempt but  was also the victim of the strike-out. I couldn't edit it either.

 

As for climate change itself, yes CO2 contributes and we add CO2, but the level of contribution of CO2 in the computer models is allotted 6X more than what appears to be its actual effect. That plus incorrectly ascribing a positive feedback loop when recent research instead is indicating a negative feedback should be a very loud wake-up call to those who depended on those models and the graphs produced by them to realistically predict climatic trends.

 

The level of political pressure and enhancement to forward the alarmist agenda seems to be exemplified in the present trend to downplay the obviously positive effect of CO2 on plant life by attempting to throw a wet blanket on Greening. That was what struck me enough to raise the debate back to the conscious level again, with hopes that people would consider that the new data doesn't support the predictions of ten years ago.

 

Maybe it's time to open some books other than the ones that tout the flawed propaganda that has tugged at the heartstrings and inflamed unwarranted outrage.

Edited by mender
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just visited Banff this last weekend, and of course the area is rife with nature seekers and sympathizers (myself included). We stopped in a photo gallery and was admiring the wildlife pictures, including ones of polar bears - with the usual hue and cry about their looming fate.

 

They've become a bit of a poster child for recruiting more people for the war on CO2, but the status of these animals is yet another arena for political manipulation and attempts at fear mongering:

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/01/18/images-from-2017-and-2018-show-polar-bears-thriving-in-a-warming-world/ 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

    Chatbox
    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More