backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 129 comment(s) - last by shin0bi272.. on Dec 17 at 5:45 AM

French citizens protest against global emissions on the eve of the climate talks in Copenhagen. Those talks took off today.  (Source: Novinite)

Along with the kickoff of the talks, the EPA announced the results of its "endangerment findings". The agency says that greenhouse gases aren't just a threat to polar bears -- they're a threat to man as well. The agency will aggressively pursue regulation, bypassing similar legislation remains stuck in Congress.  (Source: PBS)
The U.S. government embraces its first round of emissions restrictions amid skepticism

For better or worse the UN-sponsored climate change talks kicked off today in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Over the course of the conference, scientists will present evidence that unchecked man-made climate change is likely to lead to drought, flood, storms and rising seas.  For host-nation Denmark, the issue hits particularly close to home, as the country is low lying (the average height is only 31 meters above sea level) and borders the ocean.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen describes, "For the next two weeks, Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen. By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future."

The conference opened with some of the 110 world leaders set to attend the conference watching a sci-fi themed video depicting children facing a world of tomorrow in which violent storms and bleak deserts had ravaged mankind.  Remarks one of the terrified youngsters at the film's end, "Please help save the world."

The climate summit looks to limit global warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).  The conference's timing isn't exactly perfect -- it comes a mere weeks after the leak of emails from the CRU, Britain's largest climate research center, revealed that many warming studies' results may have been falsified or intentionally altered.

One good piece of news for the conference was U.S. President Obama's decision to change his attendance from December 9 (Wednesday) to December 18, allowing him to attend the critical final day of negotiations.  States the White House, "Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 rather than on Dec. 9."

Amid the ongoing climate talks, the Environmental Protection Agency moved today to force Congress's hand, pushing through of climate change mandates that have been stalled in Congress, following bipartisan debate. Describes EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, "The decision made today shows that this Administration will not ignore science or the law any longer.  The United States government is in the arena on clean energy and climate solutions."

The EPA announced the results of its "endangerment finding" on carbon emissions this Monday afternoon at around 1:15 P.M.  The results validate a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that global warming is covered under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA will begin cracking down on emitters this month, forcing companies to begin tracking their emissions.  By next year they will have to be publishing this data publically, and by 2011 they will be forced to adopt the "best available technology".  The EPA ruling could also effect fuel economy standards on new cars in the future.

Ms. Jackson dismissed the criticisms surrounding the leaked emails, dubbed "Climategate".  She argued that evidence of manmade warming has been demonstrated conclusively by "decades of sound, peer-reviewed scientific data".

Carl Pope of the Sierra Club cheered the news, stating, "As the major global warming summit begins this week in Copenhagen, this announcement couldn’t come at a more important time. The Obama administration has followed through on its pledge to act and is demonstrating that the U.S. has turned away from eight years of inaction under the Bush administration."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
what's the rush?
By RamsayGetLost on 12/7/2009 3:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Push it through right after climategate breaks news?

What sense does this make?




RE: what's the rush?
By ussfletcher on 12/7/2009 3:14:24 PM , Rating: 5
They have to ram through irreversible changes before the entire 'Man made Global Warming' crap comes crashing down.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By drebo on 12/7/2009 3:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Whether its happening or not is irrelevant. The issue here is whether or not humans have done, or CAN do, anything to alter that fact.

We're arrogant bastards if we think that anything we do can affect the world to such a degree. There are FAR, FAR more powerful elements out there that are entirely out of our control.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/2009 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. You can deny the effects of human influence on the climate all you want to, but that doesn't make it go away.

Even putting the "climategate" people aside, the data is clear. Whether or not you choose to "believe" in that data is technically up to you...in as much as you can choose whether or not to "believe" in the theory of gravity.

Ultimately, if the world's climate researchers are telling us that humans are causing climate change, due to their analysis of available evidence, I'm going to accept their analysis, since quite frankly I'm not qualified to question their findings. If later on, through the adherence to the scientific method, that body of researchers comes back ands says "know what? We goofed. Wasn't humans after all." then I'll accept that analysis, since I'm not qualified to question their findings.

...but the revelation of "climategate" - aka a few scientists who are at least giving an impression of impropriety - does not give anyone license to declare that the findings of the world's climate researchers as a whole are invalid.


RE: what's the rush?
By drebo on 12/7/2009 3:51:03 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with your point of view is that it asks me to do the impossible by proving a negative while absolving you of any responsibility of doing your due diligeance in proving that any corellation exists at all.

That's not science, it's pandering.

And, as for the CRU leak, it's not just "a few scientists". The controversy is a result of the fact that the data sets in question are the data sets upon which the ENTIRITY of the pro-AGW camp's "models" are based. The fact that they have never let an "outsider" view the unadjusted data, claim it's been lost due to insufficient hard disk space, and will only release PORTIONS of the "adjusted" data combined with the revelation that the data and models have indeed been manually adjusted should give any rational human being reason to pause and consider what they're being told.

Hypocrisy as has been seen at this "summit" only serves to reinforce the fact that the people who are making these claims do not have the best interests of the planet or its inhabitents in mind in the policy they claim is utterly urgent.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/2009 4:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with your point of view is that it asks me to do the impossible by proving a negative while absolving you of any responsibility of doing your due diligeance in proving that any corellation exists at all.


...it's not my responsibility, since I'm not a climate researcher. It's the responsibility of the world's climate researches to do that due diligence, and they have, and the fact that you don't like their findings is irrelevant...you don't have to like them, but you also don't get to dismiss them.

As for your "CRU leak" paragraph, you're intentionally sensationalizing the issue - along with mainstream media, hungry for a story. Your presentation of the issue is not accurate, and is wildly biased to make it sound like there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists to deceive the entirety of mankind. If you *honestly* think there's that kind of global conspiracy at work...well, I don't really think anything I say to you is going to help you at all. Good luck with that.

quote:
Hypocrisy as has been seen at this "summit" only serves to reinforce the fact that the people who are making these claims do not have the best interests of the planet or its inhabitents in mind in the policy they claim is utterly urgent.


...what the hell is that supposed to mean? What would the world's climate researchers stand to gain by banding together in a global conspiracy to get people to curb harmful emissions? What would they get, if in fact anthropogenic global warming is, in fact, a total fraud as you claim? And how is it not in the "best interests of the planet or it's inhabitants" to pursue, aggressively, a solution to the already apparent symptoms of AGW?


RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...what the hell is that supposed to mean? What would the world's climate researchers stand to gain by banding together in a global conspiracy to get people to curb harmful emissions? What would they get, if in fact anthropogenic global warming is, in fact, a total fraud as you claim? And how is it not in the "best interests of the planet or it's inhabitants" to pursue, aggressively, a solution to the already apparent symptoms of AGW?


What they have to gain is employment and funding, which are powerful motivators. There is also a common attitude that if something is happening, it must be somebody's fault, and they ought to be punished for it! It feels real good when you can blame someone for something.

Warming may be happening (although for how long, and to what degree is still in much doubt). The cause of putative warming is in much greater doubt. What we need is to do *real* research (not pull the wool over politicians eyes) and find out. Spending trillions on what may be fantasy before we know makes no kind of sense at all.

These gonophs destroyed all the original data. For that crime alone they should be fired and ignored.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:22:50 PM , Rating: 3
No, I am saying we have to work it out, *by the scientific preocess*. *NOT* by labelling your oponents as "climate deniers" and "enemies of the earth". Not by lying about your data. Not by destroying data. Not by preventing opposing views from being published.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/2009 4:27:30 PM , Rating: 1
Because, you know, it's not just a few people who maybe tried to bias their results...it's the whole of the world's climate researchers all in one huge global conspiracy that are ALL faking everything they're doing to deceive us all!

Please.


RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:47:54 PM , Rating: 5
It was the world's leading climate research center on which pretty much all of the conclusions were based.


RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:52:41 PM , Rating: 3
That's what I keep trying to tell them but they don't want to listen.

Motoman is proof that Global Warming is a religion. Even with facts being thrown in his face, he's still a believer and an apologist.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 4:48:16 PM , Rating: 1
If in a few years the scientific data proves that man is not the cause of climate change and the laws passed because of that assumption are no longer valid, will we get back the taxes that were taken from everyone to try to stop the climate from changing?

If the world wide law makers are truely honest and have our best interest at heart, then they are willing to sign into law that if it is proven man isn't the cause then all the taxes will be returned to those from whom they were taken. If that is included in the treaty then I will believe they are truely working to make things better for everyone, not just themselves.


RE: what's the rush?
By Sooticus on 12/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: what's the rush?
By kattanna on 12/7/2009 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And how is it not in the "best interests of the planet or it's inhabitants" to pursue, aggressively, a solution to the already apparent symptoms of AGW


and why is it that some feel that they way they found the earth now is THE BEST way the earth should be forever?

static and unchanging to them.

why is that?


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...ummm, I would guess so that it would continue to be hospitable to human life? Just a guess.


Without Co2, which we are now calling a poison, NO life would exist on Earth dumbass.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:31:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sure...so we should all evolve to be plants instead of animals so we can breathe CO2? ...or is that just a dumbass idea?


Did you even GO to school ? Jesus christ, remember the food chain ? Just because we don't breath Co2 doesn't mean it isn't absolutely essential to our survival and the survival of almost ALL life on the planet.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By blowfish on 12/7/2009 5:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well we'll see in a few years time. By then, hopefully the scientific method will be back in use, instead of the blatant fraud that a relatively small group of highly influential alarmist climate change researchers have been perpetrating.

Motorman, you really ought to read up on the subject. You don't have to understand much by way of science, just keep an open mind and use commonsense.

Start out with something simple, and uncontroversial, insofar as it is accepted by all sides.

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapour, making up more than 70% of all greenhouse gases.

Secondly, of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year, a maximum of 3.9% is due to human activity.

For most people, it is indeed hard to believe that a group of very influential scientists could possibly collude in massaging the figures to suit their own agendas - but the recent leaked emails and parts of the computer code show exactly that. Even the guilty parties have not tried to claim that the emails were false. Instead, they have complained of "tabloid" tactics used against them, and probably hope that the whole thing will die down.

One of the biggest claims made by the fraudsters was that the earth was warmer now than at any time in the historical record.

This is an out and out lie. It is very widely accepted, and supported by much historical data, that the earth was a lot warmer about 1000 years ago, in the so-called medieval warm period. The Romans had vineyards in England - imagine that, if you've ever been to England!

Now, at the Copenhagen summit, I would actually accuse the organisers of child abuse. They played heart warming videos to the attendees, of children asking that their way of life be protected and that they don't get wiped out by rampant global warming.

How sick is that? to terrorize children into thinking that the end of the world is nigh, based on the views of a relatively small number of crooked "scientists" - though as I said earlier, their methods are not scientific, and I believe they should face criminal charges for fraud.

When you actually look at the temperature data for the earth, there are of course variations up and down all the time, as you might expect, but for the whole of the last century, true estimates of the actual temperature rise are more like 0.3c rather than the hugely inflated figure put forward by the fraudsters.

Do yourself a favour - don't just believe things without reading up about them a bit, and apply common sense.

I think Al Gore must have applied some common sense when he canceled his speech to the Copenhagen summit, since his "Inconvenient Truth" was almost entirely based on the mad Professor Jones' wild exaggerations and "processed" temperature data.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 6:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
You're a Liberal. You are blindly accepting global warming theory because it conforms to YOUR personal beliefs, not because scientists told you it's true. You won't even acknowledge the scope of the climategate scandal for goodness sake. You say it was just a "few scientists" which is completely stupid and an attempt to minimize the fallout of this atrocity. In your mind, it's as if it didn't even happen and it's now up to us to "prove" the implications of it. They are right in your face ! This is about YOUR personal liberal feelings on it, not facts and evidence. And you know it.

It went through "peer review" ? Dude, it's now been proven that the peer review process can, and HAS, been horribly biased and political. Not scientific. The peer review process, we now know, was also used to silence and discredit scientists with evidence that climate change was NOT a result of man made greenhouse gases.

Face it, you are living in a bubble and covering up your ears with your hands and chanting "la la la la la I don't wanna hear you la la la la la". You are a worshiper of a religion, not a science.


RE: what's the rush?
By TSS on 12/7/2009 8:35:44 PM , Rating: 3
Yes those things do matter to the welfare of the human species.

It's very important those things *happen* for us humans to stay healthy.

Because the idiots will build houses on eroding coastland, a city the the middle of a desert and turn food into fuel. And end up destroying themselves.

Natural selection. We aren't above nature, yknow.


RE: what's the rush?
By lco45 on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By elgueroloco on 12/8/2009 1:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. We have CO2 data for the past 800,000 years.
2. CO2 levels have naturally moved up and down over this period.
3. CO2 levels are now higher than any time in the past 800,000 years.
4. The rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution exactly mirrors the rise in population and fossil fuel use.
5. Computer modelling shows that an increase in atmospheric CO2 should result in an increase of average temperature.


1. The validity of climate data is now very questionable. However, for our purposes I will presume the data are accurate.
2. This is actually a major point against AGW. If CO2 goes up and down by itself, why should we believe we're responsible for the rise?
3. CO2 now is nowhere near the levels that have been present in the past. Levels up to 20 times the current level have been documented from periods long before humans even existed. And these were periods hundreds of millions of years ago. But I like how you cherry picked the last 800k years to make it seem like present levels are unprecedented.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/G...
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatech...
4. Actually, if you read the above links, you will see (and I have seen it elsewhere as well but don't have links) that CO2 levels actually rise as temperature rises, as a result of temperature increase, and this mechanism has been in place and functioning for hundreds of millions of years or more.
5. Computer modelling has never accurately predicted anything in the way of atmospheric conditions. It can't even accurately predict the weather past 3 days, and even that is spotty accuracy and the forecasts aren't terribly detailed.


RE: what's the rush?
By lco45 on 12/8/2009 6:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
1. No one is questioning that actual CO2 readings for the past 800,000 years. The questions are about what those amounts signify, ie. is there a causal relationship between those levels and temperature, etc.

2. Yes, it moves up and down by itself. Our contribution is added to that natural variation.

3. The last 800,000 years are the only time we have hard data, and our current levels are substantially higher than any time in that period.

4. I'm not debating cause and effect, just correlation. There is obvious correlation between CO2 levels and fossil fuel consumption since the start of the industrial revolution.

5. It's harder to predict tomorrow's weather than to predict long-term changes. An example would be that you can predict summer will be hotter than winter, but not that tomorrow will be hotter than yesterday.
You can experimentally show that a box of air gets hotter under a lamp with more CO2, that's not debated at all. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, the debate is whether the extra CO2 we are seeing is our fault.

Luke


RE: what's the rush?
By SeeManRun on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 5
That is nonsense. Read up on the Medieval Optimum. The world was warmer than it is now, and food was abundant, due to longer growing seasons. There were vinyards in Scotland, and dairy farms in Iceland. We can get quite a bit warmer and the overall result will be better. There will be bad effects for some, of course.

If we get cooler on the other hand, its almost all bad.


RE: what's the rush?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/7/2009 7:08:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There will be bad effects for some


However, things have changed. We have much more people to feed. More people are living near the sea. Food is not going to be abundant when population centres now taken most of the land and you can't relocate farming to more temperate regions in case of rapid climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-th...


RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/8/2009 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
True, many people now live by the sea. *IF* the sea level rises to a huge degree, this will be a very large problem. But there will be large areas in the north that will be habitable that could take all these people.

It would not be easy, but still far better than cooling, because we get more usable land and more food.

My main question is whether anything we can do will have any effect at all on the climate, which is going to change if it wants to.


RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We may fail, but to not even try... Well, that is Republican.


The UK, after spending 200+ billion on climate change based emission reduction policies, recently canceled the program. Why ? Because years and billions of dollars later, their Co2 levels have remained the same.

Take that for what you will. I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to be rational with someone who believes something so irrational.

And, by the way, the Earth is NOT warming. How many times do we have to point this out to you people ?


RE: what's the rush?
By Nfarce on 12/7/2009 5:07:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We may fail, but to not even try... Well, that is Republican.


And to doctor evidence, hide other opinions and research data that disputes AGW, and to arrogantly proclaim "The Debate Is Over" on any potential man-made global warming is...well...so Democrat.

Tell ya what: when I see the Copenhagen clowns stop doing this every year for that summit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climat... I'll start having more respect for the lot of them and their cause. Hypocrites.

We can't even accurately forecast weather patterns (hint: the NOAA is 0 for 4 on their hurricane season activity forecasts post-Katrina), yet somehow we are to know that our VERY brief existence in the 20th Century when industry ramped up that we are affecting the climate, and immediate draconian measures need to be taken.

I don't think so.


RE: what's the rush?
By SeeManRun on 12/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 6:48:21 PM , Rating: 4
Except we DON'T have the evidence. And it's just been discovered that the "evidence" upon which everyone was basing their theories was intentionally forged, made up, skewed and biased.

Sorry but your "safe than sorry" attitude on this is disastrous. You are saying it's ok to destroy peoples lives today, because tomorrow might, MIGHT, be too late ?

quote:
One can't prove humans are the cause of global warming until it is so clear that it will be too late.


Huh ? I'm sorry but I thought the "hockey stick" said global temperatures were going to exponentially increase. And THAT was the proof. Now that global temps have actually been lowering, we're saying there won't be ANY proof until it's too late ?

That doesn't seem like science to me. Thanks for making our point for us.


RE: what's the rush?
By Nfarce on 12/7/2009 8:16:25 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking of opposite, in 1975 the rage was GLOBAL COOLING and a coming ice age that we needed to prep for. Oh yeah, and the government and "scientists" were involved with that back then too. So, you tell me bud, what makes "science" go from scare tactics of global cooling to scare tactics (and draconian and fascist policy) of global warming? I eagerly await your reply.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-g...


RE: what's the rush?
By Nfarce on 12/7/2009 8:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, your ignoring of my points of the doctored data, cherry picked and deleted emails, and attempt to quell dissenting opinion is duly noted....


RE: what's the rush?
By JediJeb on 12/8/2009 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Then the earth must be cooling because the last two years have seen fewer named storms/hurricanes than the average for the last 10 years. The ones that did occur have also been weaker on average. So if what you say is true then the climate is getting cooler.

Also thinking that man is the one in control of the Earth is like thinking a speck of dust controls the movements of the solar system. The Earth does it's thing, and we are just along for the ride. You either learn to ride it out or you get bucked off.


RE: what's the rush?
By AlexWade on 12/7/2009 4:27:11 PM , Rating: 5
What is the gain? Have you read part of the draft Copenhagen treaty? It gives the UN unprecedented power. Have you seen how much money makes Phil Jones' grants? Phil Jones is a multi-millionaire because he has made over $20 million in grants. What is the gain? Lots and lots and lots and lots of money and then even more money on top of that.

Let me ask you this: If climate change is so sound, why did it take a leak or hack (we still don't know which) to get many of these so-called climate scientists to release their data and programs? If the science is sound, it is bulletproof and can withstand intense scrutiny. Of course, nobody is perfect so it may have some errors. But minor errors would not detract from the idea. So, why hide the data and why hide the source code if the theory is solid and sound? If the science is sound, scrutiny will only make the position stronger.

Let me ask another question: The leaked or hacked emails show that it is not as bad as we thought. Why aren't you happy that the problem isn't as bad as thought? If you care about the earth so much, why aren't happy for the good news about the earth?

Let me ask you a third question: Have you done any research into the science of global warming? And I am not talking about realclimate.org, which is run by Gavin Schmidt who has close connections to James Hansen and other in climategate emails. I'm talking honest objective research. Have you done that research? If not, I suggest you start at climateaudit.org, which can get very technical.


RE: what's the rush?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: what's the rush?
By corduroygt on 12/7/2009 3:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
When your funding relies on how you spin the data in favor of climate change existing, I tend not to believe those "scientists"


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By AlexWade on 12/7/2009 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is FAR FAR F-A-R more money in pro-AGW funding than anti-AGW funding.

It is funny. The pro-AGW crowd is like Big Tobacco. Big Environment I will call them. Big Environment has all the money, all the power, and manipulates studies in their favor. Just like Big Tobacco did.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By blowfish on 12/7/2009 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 3
From us, of course, in taxes! It's our money they are blowing!

I know for a fact that Big Oil is not funding me, and I'm all for conservation, the use of sustainable and renewable energy sources, recycling, limits on toxic chemicals in the environment, organic farming methods and so on.

Simply because I am not a believer in AGW does not make me a pawn of Big Oil.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Spuke on 12/7/2009 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. You can deny the effects of human influence on the climate all you want to, but that doesn't make it go away.
You guys really like to argue about this stuff. How can you rehash the same arguments week after week, month after month? This doesn't go for just you but everyone in this thread. Seriously, at the end of the day, people go their own way. Why argue about it when it makes no difference at all?


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:13:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Irrational decision making processes make everything worse. You simply don't want to encourage people to ignore the results of the scientific method when they "don't agree" with them.


What part of forming a theory without facts, and making up numbers and forging software models to prove that theory has anything to do with the "scientific method" ?

The scientific method is NOT being used by most of the climate scientists you are supporting. And now the rest of the world has proof and we know it. Well.. everyone except you, the EPA, and Obama. I should say most of the educated intelligent world I guess.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: what's the rush?
By SeeManRun on 12/7/2009 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What part of forming a theory without facts, and making up numbers and forging software models to prove that theory has anything to do with the "scientific method" ?


We don't have a spare planet to properly test this theory on. Actually, you would really need several planets, some to act as controls while other the experiment.. Not all scientific studies conform to the exact same method. The scientific method is not so rigid as you claim. Otherwise it would be the Religious method, which can change at will, or remain completely static in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.


RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
As an engineer, I will go with anything that works. We may not understand dowsing, but it does seem to work under some circumstances. Saying that bomb detection devices can't work "because they are just dowsing" is no better than the encephalo-proctological people at the climate center saying "We have to make them believe! Its for their own good!". Results. Falsifiable hypotheses. If dowsing works, use it. But test it before saying it can't work. There is no known mechanism by which it can work, but that just makes the payoff bigger if we find it does. I would certainly agree that there seems little chance that it can work, but there is an annoying group of people who seem to be able to do ti.


RE: what's the rush?
By SeeManRun on 12/7/2009 4:31:46 PM , Rating: 1
If lying to the people because they are too stupid to actually understand, benefits them, then is it really wrong?


RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 4:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
Lying as a means to an end will just become and end in itself. How do you think we got to where we are now in politics?

And saying people are too stupid to understand - that just boggles my mind. Maybe you are too stupid to explain it properly...


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By zozzlhandler on 12/7/2009 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Coming from you, I take that as a complement.


RE: what's the rush?
By Spuke on 12/7/2009 6:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because it does make a difference.
To whom? You have the same people making the same arguments. It makes no difference when there's no change. You're just beating your head against a wall. Those that are willing to hear what you have to say will demonstrate such willingness by being open to what you have to say. Those that protest are not interested and are not worth the energy to argue with. My opinion but it seems to be accurate in my experience.


RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 4:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ultimately, if the world's climate researchers are telling us that humans are causing climate change, due to their analysis of available evidence, I'm going to accept their analysis,


Amazing. Even after it's come out that they lied, and that the data that ALL climate researchers base their research on is tainted, forged, and bogus.

You really are an idiot man. Sorry. And this proves it.

quote:
since I'm not qualified to question their findings.


But you ARE qualified to back them ? You don't have to be qualified to see a scandal and call it what it is. In this case, since you can't seem to posses basic reasoning skills and common sense, you factually are an idiot. Maybe that's harsh, maybe you are just mentally retarded. Either way, stop posting or get a clue.


RE: what's the rush?
By Amiga500 on 12/7/2009 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and that the data that ALL climate researchers base their research on is tainted, forged, and bogus.


Sorry, WHAT?

Did I miss something.

Please provide some references to this. Thank you.


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By blowfish on 12/7/2009 6:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
But you are acting like a troll.

Sure, not ALL climate researchers are fraudsters, but "the Team", that small group of researchers centred around Jones and Hansen are VERY influentioal - their work leading directly to UN policy.

It's as if we are actually back in the Middle Ages, with such massive influence by such a small group of people.

But don't worry. There are moves to increase the amount of independent monitoring stations around the world, so even if people are not yet convinced that the whole AGW thing is a scam, on an almost unimaginable scale, then at least they will be in good time.

If there were World Temperature Futures, they could be very ripe for short selling. Imagine how much you could make with so many people convinced that we're on the road to Hell!

By the way - did you used to subscribe to the previous alarmist beliefs that were in vogue in the 70's, that we were heading for the next Ice Age?


RE: what's the rush?
By Motoman on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: what's the rush?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2009 6:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can decide that science is a fraud if that makes you happy.


Nobody is saying science is a fraud you idiot. We're saying, and it's a fact, that the data behind THIS science (climate change) IS fraud. That's an absolute FACT.

How many times do we have to tell you that here ?


RE: what's the rush?
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2009 5:11:58 PM , Rating: 1
It is amazing you are willing to say thousands of scientists are frauds based on a couple scientists doing a less than perfect job!

Firstly what they did was aimed at simplifying and really not more than taking anomalies in data and secondly THEY DID NOT TELL LIES OR EVEN ANYTHING CLOSE.

Secondly and even more important there are thousands of scientist behind the climate change research. If they found it to be wrong they would either be on the other fence (where there is more money) or be researching something else.

Please either bring forward the facts saying global warming is not caused by man or at least stop trying derail the debate. This is not FOX NEWS even though it sure seems like it much of the time.


RE: what's the rush?
By kattanna on 12/7/2009 7:07:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well no...but to be fair, I'd have to point out that by the end of the 70s, I was only 9 years old.


then you should enjoy reading this

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9...

quote:
Science: Another Ice Age? Monday, Jun. 24, 1974


quote:
Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F


so for a 30 year period, in which time WW2 happened and its MASSIVE industrial buildings and the boom of american industry afterwards in the 50's, the earth was actually cooling. but if all this warming, now, is due to man releasing CO2 since the mid 1800's, then how does increasing CO2 levels allow for long periods of cooling?

according to their own models, it shouldnt, yet it happened.

if they were wildly off target then, what makes these new models correct? and also remember that these current models cannot predict the new current cooling trend.


RE: what's the rush?
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/7/2009 6:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even putting the "climategate" people aside, the data is clear. Whether or not you choose to "believe" in that data is technically up to you


Where's your data? Show me. Oh yeah, they "lost" it all. The only things left are graphs that have been proven to be intentionally manipulated, and predictions that have already been proven wrong. Go to hell.


RE: what's the rush?
By elgueroloco on 12/8/2009 1:39:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm going to accept their analysis, since quite frankly I'm not qualified to question their findings.


Hmm. Well I'm not a priest or Bible scholar, so I guess I'm not qualified to question the teachings and "findings" of the Catholic Church with regards to what the Bible means, or where we come from, or the nature of the universe. Yep, I'd better just mindlessly accept whatever the Pope tells me and always do it. And never question it. </sarcasm>


RE: what's the rush?
By apcguru on 12/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: what's the rush?
By AEvangel on 12/7/2009 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
So if we are so much more powerful then the humans that were alive say around 1200bc, then explain to me how it was just as hot then and there was just as much C02 then as their is now?

I guess they were even MORE powerful then we are now since there was less humans alive then their is now.


RE: what's the rush?
By SeeManRun on 12/7/2009 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 1
I think it is obvious. Humans were more powerful and polluted much more back then. That is the only possible answer.


RE: what's the rush?
By bjacobson on 12/7/2009 6:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
lol "infinitely more powerful"????
"Humans have a massive effect on this planet and you know it"
Yes sir, that's a solid argument. You sound like a 14 year old. Digg just called, and they want your noob-tail back.


RE: what's the rush?
By elgueroloco on 12/8/2009 2:17:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Humans activities emit 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. That is, 26000000000 tonnes. Very significant


Large numbers without context sure can sound significant. When you put them in context, however, you might get a whole different picture.

Total CO2 in the atmosphere is 3000 Gigatonnes, which makes our 26 Gigatonnes 0.87% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Further, even the IPCC calculates man's contribution to CO2 emmissions to be only 5% of the total. That means that 95% (494 Gigatonnes) of earth's annual CO2 emmissions come from nature, not man. And now consider that CO2 makes up only 582 parts per million of the atmosphere by mass. So our annual contribution to that comes out to 5.06 ppm by mass. To put that all into perspective, our 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 comprises 0.000506% of the total atmosphere. That's by mass. It's even less by volume.

That doesn't sound very significant to me.


RE: what's the rush?
By Slyne on 12/7/2009 5:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call human presence on Earth invisible:
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/1438/earth_lights.jp...

Note: this is not an opinion on global warming, only on the above assertion that human activity cannot perceptibly impact the planet.


RE: what's the rush?
By stromgald30 on 12/8/2009 4:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Humans are making an impact. We intrude on the natural/original habitats of many animals and cause many to go extinct. Being careful of how we use our natural resources (over-mining, over-logging, etc) and reducing our impact on the natural diversity of the planet is commendable.

However, the argument is whether man causes global warming, and that is far from proven.


RE: what's the rush?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/7/2009 6:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're arrogant bastards if we think that anything we do can affect the world to such a degree. There are FAR, FAR more powerful elements out there that are entirely out of our control.


So you will just sit there and keep devouring on world resources to keep your lavish life styles? And that's better than arrogant? How?

If there is a water crisis and you have to conserve water in order to survive, even though the crisis was not your fault, but is happening anyway. You know that taking a short shower save a bit of water. Although you don't know how long this water crisis will last, and you don't know how much good it will do in a long term, but you know it will at least help. Even so you still choose to keep the tap running because you think there's nothing you can do?

I suggest you read this as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm


RE: what's the rush?
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2009 7:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. The climate is changing. It was in the high 50s yesterday, today its colder.

The climate has been changing for billions of years. That doesn't mean a damn thing.


RE: what's the rush?
By Kurz on 12/8/2009 10:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, I guess people tend to be oblivious to the fact we have a relatively unpredictable Fusion Reaction going on. 93 million miles away. Plus the fact Water vapor effects the climate more than CO2.

Oh well... sometimes you cant people how to fish.


RE: what's the rush?
By Kurz on 12/8/2009 11:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
"teach people how to fish." (Sometimes I wish there were an edit button.)

Not directed at Fit
(If you need to know what I meant by this).
I basically mean THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Take things lightly and wait for opposing arguments to come out. Then make your decision. If it takes 20 years for opposing arguments I guess you just have to revaluate when new information comes out.

Because if you become to vested in believing something its hard to let go when its wrong.