Global Warming emails hacked and exposed

[grimey]

What you've posted here seems to be making my point for me. Solar output is only but one factor in climate change.

I wasn't in general referring to the whole article, just to the part where we've only been accurately recording solar radiation levels since 1978....and that's fact, not theory.

It's funny that you're still clinging to this phony science, when basically they've been caught with their pants down...:nannerf1: :jester:

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm far from an expert myself. I'm just trying to convey some factual information that I felt had been lost within the framework of this thread.

Generally aerosols and I'm talking about either man made pollutants here or natural aerosols kicked up off the surface for whatever reason. Lets say a volcano eruption. Differ somewhat from the effects of C02 because they usually exert the opposite reaction. They block the sun’s rays which can cool the area in question. But as I say in my post the effects of the two main climate culprits far outweighs the effects of aerosols due to the fact that enough of them in the atmosphere something would have had to have happened to cause them to be there.

This is the major worry with the amount of C02 being pumped into the atmosphere. Whilst you may have smog over the streets of LA I doubt it feels much cooler. This is because of the combination of a brighter sun and the sheer amount of greenhouse gasses we're dumping into the atmosphere.

Naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes, CO2 from fires, methane from decay, etc. exist today and throughout relevant earth history. The only difference to any model from what I see is man's introduction of artificially generated CO2 and erosion rain forests.

 

[BlueBalls]

Naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes, CO2 from fires, methane from decay, etc. exist today and throughout relevant earth history. The only difference to any model from what I see is man's introduction of artificially generated CO2 and erosion rain forests.

I agree.

I think I may have worded my argument incorrectly. My initial plan was to try to explain what the major factors for climate change were and how with the sustained increase in the level of the two major factors, one of whom is of our doing - which should be plain to see. The cliate will change.

To put it simply if we weren't pumping so much C02 into the atmosphere, no matter how much solar output there may be (yet). For the time being the climate wouldn't be in the shape it is in or in the shape it is going to be if something isn't done to try to slow its effects.

And, I'm done. :hatsoff:

 

[marquis2]

I agree.

I think I may have worded my argument incorrectly. My initial plan was to try to explain what the major factors for climate change were and how with the sustained increase in the level of the two major factors, one of whom is of our doing - which should be plain to see. The cliate will change.

To put it simply if we weren't pumping so much C02 into the atmosphere, no matter how much solar output there may be (yet). For the time being the climate wouldn't be in the shape it is in or in the shape it is going to be if something isn't done to try to slow its effects.

And, I'm done. :hatsoff:

The amount pumpd into the atmosphere actually isn't that great by global standards and most of it anyway wasn't put there by humans.
The plain fact is that at the moment the planet is cooling , not a lot but nevertheless it's cooling.The rise in temperatures noted in the 70s to the 90s (despite claims , it wasn't that rapid or great in historical terms) stopped in 1998.Whatever the reason something stopped it yet more human activity was taken place.
Long term we should , if previous cycles are repeated,warm for a little longer and then cool again.One of these cycles will continue until we are in another ice age. And unlike the effect of an extra degree or two an ice age would be totally catastrophic to us.Not to the planet, it will see us all off.Talk about saving the planet is crap.
To reply to the poster who questions how we know what temperatures were like in the past , the conditions leave clues behind.But we do know for example that the Romans grew vines in Northern England and a thousand years ago Greenland was , er , green and under cultivation.

 

[Hot Mega]

The amount pumpd into the atmosphere actually isn't that great by global standards and most of it anyway wasn't put there by humans.
The plain fact is that at the moment the planet is cooling , not a lot but nevertheless it's cooling.The rise in temperatures noted in the 70s to the 90s (despite claims , it wasn't that rapid or great in historical terms) stopped in 1998.Whatever the reason something stopped it yet more human activity was taken place.
Long term we should , if previous cycles are repeated,warm for a little longer and then cool again.One of these cycles will continue until we are in another ice age. And unlike the effect of an extra degree or two an ice age would be totally catastrophic to us.Not to the planet, it will see us all off.Talk about saving the planet is crap.
To reply to the poster who questions how we know what temperatures were like in the past , the conditions leave clues behind.But we do know for example that the Romans grew vines in Northern England and a thousand years ago Greenland was , er , green and under cultivation.

Wouldn't a reason for "cooling" be explained by the melting of icebergs into bodies of water as a result of warming? Sort of like the effect on a glass of water when ice cubes are added to it...The ice melts and cools the water which cools the glass.

The whole question still comes down to IMO whether you believe CO2 contributes globally to trapping heat in our atmosphere and are we generating more CO2 than can be naturally neutralized.

 

[YMIHERE]

Guy!..........that's a statement from a board of climate scientists! You notice how they put a question mark after the words possibly edited??? They're obviously trying to place blame on the hackers for their huge foul up! Did you even read some of those emails!? No evidence of falsifying data my ass! These swindlers ought to be tried for treason! These fools don't have a leg to stand on as far as affirmation of cold hard evidence!

You have a problem with climate questions answered by climate scientist? Who do you believe? That TV weather man in California who denies climate change. I look at the scientist who run Real Climate and think they are very reliable and not involved in some crazy conspiracy for research grants.

I do not understand the people who dump on the intellectual elitist. They think, dam the elitists with their facts and figures and numbers and statistics and fancy degrees. The uninformed and uneducated common man knows best.

I wasn't in general referring to the whole article, just to the part where we've only been accurately recording solar radiation levels since 1978....and that's fact, not theory.

It’s very telling that you would say it’s fact not theory. People who are science literate would not use these terms in that matter. It’s bring to mind the creationist augment that evolution is a theory not a fact.

 

[grimey]

You have a problem with climate questions answered by climate scientist? Who do you believe? That TV weather man in California who denies climate change. I look at the scientist who run Real Climate and think they are very reliable and not involved in some crazy conspiracy for research grants.

I do not understand the people who dump on the intellectual elitist. They think, dam the elitists with their facts and figures and numbers and statistics and fancy degrees. The uninformed and uneducated common man knows best.



It’s very telling that you would say it’s fact not theory. People who are science literate would not use these terms in that matter. It’s bring to mind the creationist augment that evolution is a theory not a fact.

Hey sweetnuts, if you didn't know, scientists all the time use these words to describe matters pertaining to their field of study, but I guess you wouldn't know that coz your from Philly and Philly takes it up the :nannerf1:

You just go ahead keep believing what you want but when the milk turns sour, you remember what they did to your little butt....how your favorite uncle sam had his way with you...always had his hand in your pocket...digging around in there till he found something he liked....entertaining you with jerry jerry springer even though he knew it was degrading your precious young mind..takin you camping without a descent sleeping bag, and it was, ohhh so cold! You can't get to mad at him though coz he's your uncle right??? Yeah, you remember, friend. :bawling:

 

[D-rock]

The amount pumpd into the atmosphere actually isn't that great by global standards and most of it anyway wasn't put there by humans.
The plain fact is that at the moment the planet is cooling , not a lot but nevertheless it's cooling.The rise in temperatures noted in the 70s to the 90s (despite claims , it wasn't that rapid or great in historical terms) stopped in 1998.Whatever the reason something stopped it yet more human activity was taken place.
Long term we should , if previous cycles are repeated,warm for a little longer and then cool again.One of these cycles will continue until we are in another ice age. And unlike the effect of an extra degree or two an ice age would be totally catastrophic to us.Not to the planet, it will see us all off.Talk about saving the planet is crap.
To reply to the poster who questions how we know what temperatures were like in the past , the conditions leave clues behind.But we do know for example that the Romans grew vines in Northern England and a thousand years ago Greenland was , er , green and under cultivation.

I don't know what kind of scientist you are, or even if you really are one (I'm having my doubts), but you, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.

The level of carbon dioxide doesn't have to be that great compared to total amounts in the atmosphere. In an system where things are incredibly delicate and balanced, like the Earth's ecosystem it matters. Just like a single degree in temperature matters a lot to it.

Like almost all people that try to argue against global warming from human interaction you totally do not take into account the effects of "global dimming" which is also the result of humans and has counteracted a lot of the effect of global warming. In fact if it wasn't for that global warming would be a lot worse still. (Global dimming is also probably a big part why during the times like the fifties there were people that thought the Earth was cooling. There was more particulate pollution and smog and less global warming gases.)

The level of water vapor in the atmosphere has been found by the preponderance of evidence to just be condition of overall temperature, and not really the cause for it. It's argument always irritates me, probably because it's always spouted by people that don't know what they are talking bout or that take some random point they heard from a anti global warming radio talk show host spout. Due to rain and condensation water vapor is a lot earlier to get out of the atmosphere, and it goes to equilibrium based on other things that cause temperature. The increase of water vapor is just due to the increase in overall temperature. The lower the temperature the lower the amount of atmospheric water vapor and vice versa.

While methane might be a more powerful greenhouse gas you, for some reason, don't even take into that's it's increase IS ALSO DUE TO HUMAN INTERACTION. Either with the rise of farm animals, or even greater is the melting of ice caps that release all the stored methane underneath them from decompostion of living things that were there before.

Whether you like or not vast VAST overwhelming majority of climatologist think global warming is creating climate change and is man made. Sorry, you have to actually come up with evidence (real not just the made up stuff) if you want to counter that, and not just use the very convenient excuse that essentially boils down to, "Everybody that doesn’t agree with me can't be trusted because they must be getting paid to say otherwise so everything they say doesn't count." Taking account the overall body of evidence they have acquired I say they have proven their theories pretty damn well. Sorry, I also don't buy a whole worldwide conspiracy theory from them to just make us think global warming is real.

The planet is absolutely not cooling. Any decent climatologist or just plain statistician can tell you that. It might even be the most ridiculous thing you have said yet. It's a complete logical fallacy to say that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. 1998 happened to be an extremely hot year that was an weird outlier. That doesn’t somehow mean every year after that that's cooler means the Earth is getting cooler. (It would be like taking a basketball rookie that has a freak year and averages 40 points a game his first year and then in later years he falls you 15 then goes to 20, 21, 25, 25, 24, 29, 30, 35 as he gets better and then saying he hasn't really gotten better since his rookie year, instead of realizing that one year was a weird year that broke a trend.)

The Earth is getting warmer quicker faster than any other time we know. It will soon start to be warmer than it has for human history. Even the temperatures changes you speak of took thousand or at least hundreds of years, not decades. Soon we will very quickly pass that, and keep going, and going.

Saying the rainforest are ok, and the recovering ones are helping is also a fallacy, because every year that goes by the overall amount shrinks (often by burning that just puts that much more carbon dioxide in the air.), and no recovering ones or new plant growth that might pop up do to increase in carbon dioxide don't come close to counteracting it. It's not that hard to figure out. Less forest, means less carbon dioxide coming out of the air. (Not that having the rainforest be at unspoiled would be close to enough anymore.) Not only would we have to stop the rainforest from disappearing, but just for the US to counter act the carbon dioxide it puts in the atmosphere ever year we would have to plan a forest the size of Texas, ever year.

I don't know where you get your information about Greenland, but parts of it have been farmable for a long time now since the last ice age. if one tried hard enough That seems kind of irrelevant. Looking at the melting of Greenland’s ice is one of the biggest proofs of global warming. Since it's very doubtful the rate the ice is melting off of it and where it will be shortly is anywhere close to where it has been in times of human civilization (even during the times you said were supposedly warmer than now.) In fact if it was as bad then as it is now the glaciers should already be long gone. If you don't believe me go look at Greenland's glacier lost on satelite photographs the last 20 years.

If you're indeed a scientist I would be worried about your competence, and critial thinking skiils if I was your employer.



You know how people put Holocaust deniers, geocentrist, and the Flat Earth society in their own special place of ignorance. Someday people that denied global warming or it being caused by humans will be added to the list among them.

 

[whoremaker]

Actually, it will be the pseudoscience spewing alarmists, who push a widely disproven theory based upon inaccurate computer models and misinformed assumptions, who will be added to that list. Right along with those who pushed eugenics. A nice big fraternity of crazy, fearmongering quacks.

But who's counting....

 

[marquis2]

I don't know what kind of scientist you are, or even if you really are one (I'm having my doubts), but you, quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about.

The level of carbon dioxide doesn't have to be that great compared to total amounts in the atmosphere. In an system where things are incredibly delicate and balanced, like the Earth's ecosystem it matters. Just like a single degree in temperature matters a lot to it.

Like almost all people that try to argue against global warming from human interaction you totally do not take into account the effects of "global dimming" which is also the result of humans and has counteracted a lot of the effect of global warming. In fact if it wasn't for that global warming would be a lot worse still. (Global dimming is also probably a big part why during the times like the fifties there were people that thought the Earth was cooling. There was more particulate pollution and smog and less global warming gases.)

The level of water vapor in the atmosphere has been found by the preponderance of evidence to just be condition of overall temperature, and not really the cause for it. It's argument always irritates me, probably because it's always spouted by people that don't know what they are talking bout or that take some random point they heard from a anti global warming radio talk show host spout. Due to rain and condensation water vapor is a lot earlier to get out of the atmosphere, and it goes to equilibrium based on other things that cause temperature. The increase of water vapor is just due to the increase in overall temperature. The lower the temperature the lower the amount of atmospheric water vapor and vice versa.

While methane might be a more powerful greenhouse gas you, for some reason, don't even take into that's it's increase IS ALSO DUE TO HUMAN INTERACTION. Either with the rise of farm animals, or even greater is the melting of ice caps that release all the stored methane underneath them from decompostion of living things that were there before.

Whether you like or not vast VAST overwhelming majority of climatologist think global warming is creating climate change and is man made. Sorry, you have to actually come up with evidence (real not just the made up stuff) if you want to counter that, and not just use the very convenient excuse that essentially boils down to, "Everybody that doesn’t agree with me can't be trusted because they must be getting paid to say otherwise so everything they say doesn't count." Taking account the overall body of evidence they have acquired I say they have proven their theories pretty damn well. Sorry, I also don't buy a whole worldwide conspiracy theory from them to just make us think global warming is real.

The planet is absolutely not cooling. Any decent climatologist or just plain statistician can tell you that. It might even be the most ridiculous thing you have said yet. It's a complete logical fallacy to say that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. 1998 happened to be an extremely hot year that was an weird outlier. That doesn’t somehow mean every year after that that's cooler means the Earth is getting cooler. (It would be like taking a basketball rookie that has a freak year and averages 40 points a game his first year and then in later years he falls you 15 then goes to 20, 21, 25, 25, 24, 29, 30, 35 as he gets better and then saying he hasn't really gotten better since his rookie year, instead of realizing that one year was a weird year that broke a trend.)

The Earth is getting warmer quicker faster than any other time we know. It will soon start to be warmer than it has for human history. Even the temperatures changes you speak of took thousand or at least hundreds of years, not decades. Soon we will very quickly pass that, and keep going, and going.

Saying the rainforest are ok, and the recovering ones are helping is also a fallacy, because every year that goes by the overall amount shrinks (often by burning that just puts that much more carbon dioxide in the air.), and no recovering ones or new plant growth that might pop up do to increase in carbon dioxide don't come close to counteracting it. It's not that hard to figure out. Less forest, means less carbon dioxide coming out of the air. (Not that having the rainforest be at unspoiled would be close to enough anymore.) Not only would we have to stop the rainforest from disappearing, but just for the US to counter act the carbon dioxide it puts in the atmosphere ever year we would have to plan a forest the size of Texas, ever year.

I don't know where you get your information about Greenland, but parts of it have been farmable for a long time now since the last ice age. if one tried hard enough That seems kind of irrelevant. Looking at the melting of Greenland’s ice is one of the biggest proofs of global warming. Since it's very doubtful the rate the ice is melting off of it and where it will be shortly is anywhere close to where it has been in times of human civilization (even during the times you said were supposedly warmer than now.) In fact if it was as bad then as it is now the glaciers should already be long gone. If you don't believe me go look at Greenland's glacier lost on satelite photographs the last 20 years.

If you're indeed a scientist I would be worried about your competence, and critial thinking skiils if I was your employer.



You know how people put Holocaust deniers, geocentrist, and the Flat Earth society in their own special place of ignorance. Someday people that denied global warming or it being caused by humans will be added to the list among them.

Certainly I'm a scientist and have a good degree from a prestigious university in the physical sciences and some post graduate qualifications as well.
One thing a scientist should do is to formulate a theory and then test it with what is known as a "crucial experiment"
A scientist also looks at other possible explanations for phenomena.

Now, with climate change a critical experiment isn't possible because you can't remove all the CO2 (we would all die if that happened anyway) to see what happens so we are left with observation and theory.
Observation is difficult. It's known that there are many,many factors involved.Greenhouse gases include CO2 but it's known to be much less effective than methane and in particular, water.Methane does come from animals (are there any more animals on the planet now than there were? , it's thought that the dinosaurs produced rather a lot, in any case it's also produced in swamps and by decaying vegetation) ; also involved are solar activity etc. So to pick just one factor which is known not to be the major one to be the plank of the theory makes no real sense.
You may be aware that about 8000 years ago you could walk from England to the Continent ; now there's 300 feet of water there.The sea level rose very quickly to do this and it wasn't cave men with their fires.

Back to the IPCC. Many people think this body exists of 1500 top scientist weighing up the evidence both for and against human induced climate change.The IPCC never was this nor ever intended to be so.The vast majority aren't climate scientists at all , some aren't even scientists.

The notion that the vast majority of scientists support human induced climate change is repeated over and over again so often that people tend to believe it.It just isn't the case but try telling people that.Or that recent temperature rises are unprecedented. They certainly are not.It was vastly greater when the English land bridge disappeared.Sea levels have not risen perceptibly in the last decade.

Anyway , have a look at ; http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Pay particular attention to the graph showing glacial erosion and the one correlating temperatures with solar activity.And the one depicting historical temperatures.

 

[Wainkerr99]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34308377/ns/us_news-environment/


'"The evidence is now overwhelming" that the world needs early action to combat global warming, said Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an U.N. expert panel.

He defended climate research in the face of a controversy over e-mails pilfered from a British university, which global warming skeptics say show scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence that doesn't fit their theories.

"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC," he told the conference.'

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Everyone of the environmentalists runs around like chicken little yelling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" What man does on this planet (aside from nuclear fuck holocaust) is of so little consequence that I rarely, if ever, give my impact on the environment any consideration.

I watched that documentary about the scam they're running on Showtime and I've read more than just the hacked emails and I can unequivocally call shennanigans on everyone involved on up from the smelly hippies celebrating Earth day to Al Gore(leone) and his fraudulent carbon chits.

 

[ChefChiTown]

As a scientist myself I am profoundly unhappy about many of the factors in the climate change debate.The fact that it's based on CO2 in the air though other substances like water vapour and droplets are much more powerful thermal agents , that they disregard historical temperature fluctuations and maintain (falsely) that recent warming has been unprecedented.The fact that the models used to predict future temperatures don't give the right answers when checked agains known past data.The idea that the "overwhelming mass of scientists support it" when even the climatologists can't agree.Even the IPCC bodies were split on the report .
Remember that after all that's happened the planet is still cooler than in Roman times.

They disregard A LOT of factors and do nothing but try to act as if we (humans) are 100% responsible for what is happening to our planet. George Carlin was right when he said that we, as humans, are arrogant; we're arrogant to think that we can influence this world in such a big way, even though we are miniscule in comparison to everything else that is going on.

 

[grimey]

"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC,"

That's a bit like callin' the kettle black...

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC," he told the conference.'

When leftist pull shit like this, it's called investigative journalism. When conservatives do it, its called stealing. Hypocrites.