Climategate

So we've all heard it for years now, since about the late 1980s or so. The Earth is warming up, and we're responsible for it. We've had this drummed into our squishy little heads for most of our lives. Some of us have had it pounded in endlessly ALL our lives. Predictions of doom and gloom about how the world is about to melt itself are par for the course. So much so that Al Gore made an entire propaganda movie out of it. Since everyone and his dog has been saying this with no real challenge to it (at least not in the media) most people simply accept that it's true.

Except, it's not. As I'm sure most everyone here is aware by now, a major hack occurred recently on the email servers belonging to the Climate Research Unit in England. In the material that was leaked, it came to light that many if not all of the involved scientists have been lying about Global Warming all along. To the point of even fabricating the data involved to create the illusion that the situation really was as dire as they say. Now that this information is out, folks are finally beginning to realize that they've been duped. Will it prove to be enough information in time to stop the lunacy that's been part of the GW's religion these last 3 decades? Can we bring a stop to Copenhagen or has the political machinery already moved too far to stop it? Will the usurper Obama even listen?

Now, a bunch of scientists cooking the books on something silly like the climate may not seem like a huge deal to some. The problem with that line of thinking is that the information gathered by the CRU has been used as the primary basis behind the IPCC report on climate change. The IPCC is a UN panel of politicians who make policy for the UN, and in turn use their influence around the world to get countries to enact policy there too. Including here in the USA. So it's a very big deal to find out that most of the supporting data behind the IPCC report was bogus from the start. Of course, anyone with any common sense has been saying this all along, and at least a few honest scientists out there have been screaming about it saying that the IPCC is acting without any real knowledge of the issue.

There was a petition circulated some time back that Al Gore ran around touting as the be all and end all of debate on Global Warming. Something like 2600 "scientists" signed it, saying man was the sole cause. The only problem was, almost none of the signatories were scientists of any sort, much less climatologists. The real truth was something else entirely, as 17,000+ scientists (not all of whom are climatologists) signed a petition of their own, headlined at the link as "Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate". So who exactly do we believe? Al Gore claimed the debate was over. Apparently 17,000 scientists didn't get the memo.

Of course, the best data is raw data, with actual temperature readings and such. Data that could be verified one way or the other as being accurate, false, or somewhere in between. The big problem is that not only was the data cooked, as it turns out, they destroyed all the raw data they collected years ago! This isn't just data collected over the last 30 years, it's data on temperature readings from as far back as 150 years which were used as the basis for dozens of initiatives, and for Al Gore's movie. Even if they hadn't destroyed the data, and hadn't been cooking the books with what they used, if you dig around enough you'll find that most of the reporting stations they've gathered data from over the last 50 years or so have been in densely populated urban areas, often sitting on the rooftops of tall buildings, close to exhaust vents of air conditioning systems. So even if you accept the data is not tampered with, the methods used to gather it were fatally flawed to begin with!

Worried by claims that sea levels will be rising too fast to deal with? Don't despair. It's not going to happen. The few tidal measurement stations they're using to justify this particular bit of scare tactic are located on land in China that is subsiding into the sea for geological reasons. Not because the water is rising. Also consider that the vast majority of the northern polar ice they keep saying will drown us all has already all melted away. It's gone. And we're all still here. Oh, and the polar bears are having a population explosion. Seems they love it. There's also tons of evidence to show that many of the glaciers they say are receding are in fact growing. The ice cap in Greenland is expanding, not shrinking, and the major ice pack in Antarctica is getting bigger. This despite the media's focus on the Ross Ice Shelf which is breaking away. Sure, that makes for sensational reporting, but it's not proof of planetary catastrophe.

Those of you who were around in the 1970s may remember the doomsday reports of the day. They weren't about how we're all going to die from a planet warming up, they were all about how we were going to die because the Earth is on the brink of a new ice age. For some amusement, head on over to our pals at Pravda, in Russia of all places, because it seems they never got the GW memo there.

Perhaps the most obviously compelling evidence is what we as laypeople can observe for ourselves. Has anyone here in the USA noticed how cool the last two summers were? Sure, there were some really hot days, but over all throughout the USA, I distinctly recall many weathermen on the air saying it was an unusually cool summer in both 2008 and 2009, which was on the heels of a scorcher in 2007. I used my air conditioning for all of about a month here, where normally that would have been done for 5 months easy. This winter so far in California has been a whole lot colder than past winters. We're already seeing snow fall in some of the local mountains from rogue storms. Of course, California being what it is, it might be 90 degrees next week and have 10 wildfires raging. But there were no power alerts at all this year, which should make people stop and think. It's also been plainly obvious from reports on the news that have been coming fast and furious for the last 2 years that the climate is likely in a cooling phase. Brutal winters, record snowfalls back east, and even one freak snowstorm in Dallas this year in September of all months. Not to mention, hurricane season the last 2 years may as well have not existed.

And last, but not least, exactly who are we to say that the climate we had in 1980 is ideal? Geology and paleontology both prove beyond much doubt that the Earth had a much warmer climate in times past. You'll find very few people who will dispute this fact, and obviously we weren't around with our SUVs and private jets to cause it back then. Or so they say, but that's a debate for another day. At the very least, we didn't have sufficient numbers to be a factor. One need only look as far as Alaska's northern region to know this to be fact. Oil. It comes from long dead plant material. There's oodles of it up there. In what is today a vast frozen wasteland. It wasn't always that.

The real inconvenient truth is out there now. Those of us who have been telling you all along that Global Warming (caused by man) is a hoax are vindicated. If you can find a copy, get ahold of the emails. Read them for yourself. Judge for yourself. And go checkout the links here: http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

BTW, I think God also has a sense of humor in all this, because I saw no end to news reports about big important Global Warming meetings being held in cities where they'd just been dumped on by record snowfall in times of the year when that stuff simply doesn't happen. :)
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Swine Flu Scam Email
Randomness of Dreams »

Posted on Dec 2, 2009 9:33 pm by Samson in: | 53 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
I won't get into a long and protracted debate about the relevant merits of these documents or the science behind them and those of climate change, we all ready know where i stand on the issue and that i firmly believe that the climate change we are witnessing is human induced.

Lets for a minute consider that the warming we see is not human induced and that it is just natural fluctuation in global temperatures that we see throughout geologic history. What do you propose we do? The earth might get 4 or 5 Deg warmer than it currently is and stay there for 1000's to hundreds of thousands of years, lets face it, natural cycles occur on geologic time scales and they are long, much longer than any of us are going to live for.

Even if this is just a natural cycle, the kind of life that we know is going to go to shit in a shoe box in as little as 100 years if we take no action. In the short term, reducing carbon emissions in the short term will buy us time to come up with technical solutions to the problem, one which we are going to have to tackle or adapt to and adaption is not something most westerners will welcome, so a technical solution is the only real answer.

For me, the more that i have looked at this problem the more that i have come to the conclusion that i don't care all to much about who is right and who is wrong, weather this is human induced or not, we do have an increase in global temperatures that is going to impact on us, and even blind freddy can see the retreat of glaciers, sea ice and ice shelf's as proof of that and we will have to do something about it eventually or change how we live.

Fury's Precautionary Principle: In the absence of scientific certainty on any matter where is a perceived risk to the continuation of the human species on the planet earth, then precaution should prevail and cost effective measures should be enacted to minimize the harm to current and future populations.

       
Fury's Wingnut Principle: In any scientific matter where there are differing opinions and viewpoint, there will always be 1 wingnut scientist who will take his 15 seconds of fame and say that we are all about to die or that the scientific consensus is all bullshit.

Case Point: The idiots who claimed we were all going to get sucked into a blackhole made by the LHC when it was fired up. Guess what, those wingnuts were wrong because they did not understand basic physics, the LHC is smashing shit together and we are all still alive. Go Figure. :)

       
Lets for a minute consider that the warming we see is not human induced and that it is just natural fluctuation in global temperatures that we see throughout geologic history.


Lets make this easy. You just summed up the real truth rather nicely in one short sentence. Common sense would lead you to that conclusion in the absence of all this propaganda anyway.

What do you propose we do?


Nothing. Since it's a cycle we can't control, there's nothing we can do to stop it either since that would imply we have control. We don't. We never did. All it would take to prove it would be for the sun to do what it does best - get hotter.

The earth might get 4 or 5 Deg warmer than it currently is and stay there for 1000's to hundreds of thousands of years, lets face it, natural cycles occur on geologic time scales and they are long, much longer than any of us are going to live for.


That would be unlikely to happen based on what we know from geology. Real climate scientists are fairly certain the Earth has a cycle of roughly 40,000 years where it gets really cold and forms ice ages, and then warms back up again making things nice and tropical pretty much everywhere. From all the information we have that was gathered through actual methodical observation, we're close to the high end of this cycle. It fits, because we know the last ice age ended roughly 15-20 thousand years ago. The last vestiges of it are still hanging around, and if the cycle does what it usually does, they'll eventually all melt away leaving only the southern polar cap intact.

One must consider also that we have observed similar warming occurring on Mars as we had here on Earth. Nobody disputes that the Earth warmed some. But in order for it to have been caused by man one must also accept that we caused the same thing to happen on Mars, and last I checked, we haven't colonized the planet yet and the few rovers we have there aren't belching out carbon emissions.

There's also the small matter of fact that evidence from the time of Christ strongly suggests that the Earth was much warmer back then, even for a desert region, as historians have uncovered plenty of accounts of drought and other conditions associated with high temperatures in areas that were normally much cooler. Which leads to one of my favorite phrases: "What did Jesus drive?"

As I mentioned back in 2007, we lack the technology to control the climate. I doubt very much any of us will ever see that level of technology attained within our lifetimes. That's the stuff of Star Trek episodes. Planetary climate and weather control would take an enormous amount of energy to accomplish. Perhaps if we give it another 500 years.

Do keep in mind, I have no issues with initiatives to have cleaner water and cleaner air. I doubt anyone with their sanity still intact would advocate we return to the medieval days of drinking from shit infested water sources or that we return to 1800s London where the fog was black and heavy with coal dust. We already have plenty of existing regulations in place to maintain a healthy environment. There's no need to cripple our economies instituting policies based on junk science with no valid data to back it up.

       
Nothing. Since it's a cycle we can't control,


Even under the assumption that this part of the natural cycle, we should actually be in a cool period, in actual fact we are already well over due for another ice age. However, even tho we do not currently have the technology to regulate the global temperature, that is not to say we will not have it in the near to medium future. Just think of all the technological achievements that have happened in times of crisis, The Manhattan Project for example, forget the fact we worked out how to bomb people better, the spin off technology from that one period of crisis when we actually invested time and money into trying to solve a problem has been enormous.

There's no need to cripple our economies instituting policies based on junk science with no valid data to back it up.


Also, assuming that this is a natural cycle, doing nothing would seem rather dumb and short sighted, if we have no option but to adapt to a warmer planet, even 2 degrees is going to impact heavily on our societies and ways of life, should we not be starting now to adapt to that very real possibility. 2 degrees warming (which is a very modest estimate) will be enough to desertify a lot of the range land in the central USA, will cause the collapse of marginal lands used in grain production, will cause the drying up of aquifers which many US cities depend on for their water supplies, places like New Orleans, Florida and the Mid West will be battered by more frequent and more powerful storms and this is but a small beginning of the changes we will have to adapt to, which does not include the island nations that are slowly going underwater now and the impact this will have on the rest of the world. A 2 degree warming is enough to cripple our economies and change how we live, burying our heads in the sand and saying there is nothing we can do is not going to change that, eventually, someone will have to act and adapt to it or we vanish like the Mayans did when their agriculture and water systems collapsed.

That would be unlikely to happen based on what we know from geology.


Actually if we have begun a warming cycle, it is quite possible that we could see up to 8 degrees of warming globally,

One must consider also that we have observed similar warming occurring on Mars


You do know that since the last time we discussed this, that the mad Russians paper you base this on, has been debunked by a number leading scientists in this field, some of which are climate change deniers as well. This paper is so full of errors its hard to know if the guy was actually serious when he wrote it or just full of vodka and having a laugh, either way, he got his 15 seconds of fame for being a wingnut.


       
A 2 degree warming is enough to cripple our economies and change how we live, burying our heads in the sand and saying there is nothing we can do is not going to change that, eventually, someone will have to act and adapt to it or we vanish like the Mayans did when their agriculture and water systems collapsed.


Guess what? We may well be headed the way of the Mayans. If this climate change occurs as fast as everyone claims it will, we're all dead in 100 years. If the current fertile belt in the USA dries up and becomes a desert, a whole lot of people in a large portion of the world will die of starvation. They're not doing anything to help themselves out of their current situations, and most of the 3rd world lacks the resources to even try.

So it will come down to a matter of self preservation, and as crass as it sounds, better them than us. Survival of the fittest at its best.

And we haven't begun a warming cycle. That started some 15,000 years ago when the ice age ended and the glaciers began receding. If anything we're just along for the ride for wherever it ends up going. Only modern man's arrogance says that the climate we had in 1980 was perfect and cannot be allowed to change. As if we could stop it.

For the religious folks, consider, Revelation says the Earth will end in fire. Well here's a scenario for you. Suppose it wasn't literally fire and brimstone that will scorch the Earth. Suppose instead it was actually a dire prediction of a climate catastrophe made by people we currently think were all backward as hell. Dig around a bit out there, you'll probably end up surprised at just how advanced past societies really were. Maybe they knew something we don't today?

Re: Mars: If you think some mad Russian is the only thing I based that on, you're nuts. Planetary warming on Mars is something NASA has also observed, and has the raw data to back it up with. See, they don't go around destroying their hard evidence like the CRU does. They're not afraid of the implications. Though you'll find NASA also has plenty of kooks working for them as well and plenty of them think Al Gore is the savior of the modern world. But they're at least honest about it.

       
BTW, it looks like our very own Senator Boxer is joining in the latest chorus of fools who have completely missed the point here. Personally I'd give the hackers a medal and make them national heroes rather than threaten to have them charged with crimes.

       
So it will come down to a matter of self preservation, and as crass as it sounds, better them than us. Survival of the fittest at its best.


That's a future that i find really hard to accept, but its not entirely out of the question either, as things go to shit, that will be exactly what will happen, nothing crass about that, its cold hard reality if we do not work towards adaption.

I would like to think that the human spirit will prevail here and that the governments of the world will unite and work together to tackle the issues and problems caused by global warming, and that time, energy and money on a grand scale get funneled into research into technical solutions to these problems, rather than be used to bail out banks and prop up a dysfunctional banking and investment sector. Just imagine what novel approaches and technological changes could be brought about with the 700 billion dollars the US alone spend on bailouts of greedy fucks.

I would like to leave behind a habital planet for my kids, grand-kids and future generations. I think that is something worth striving for.,

       
I would like to leave behind a habital planet for my kids, grand-kids and future generations. I think that is something worth striving for.


We have one now. As long as we don't nuke ourselves, we're not going anywhere anytime soon. Of course, whether or not the climate cooperates is up to nature. There's nothing we can do to stop it, so I see no sense in raising panic alarms because of it.

       
Sorry for joining in so late, but after reading everything prior to Samson's last post, oddly enough, I was just thinking "or the governments in question could go nuts in trying to 'protect their resources from everyone else' by using nukes and ending up with a Fallout style world left over" and then Samson mentioned the nukes.. nicely timed. :D

As for the main topic at hand, I think I expressed my stance at least a few times a couple of years ago when we last had this chat. Basically I think the global warming crowd are fear-mongering and full of it. I think what evidence we do have before us indicates that we're getting colder rather than hotter. Even in the unlikely case that Fury's right and we're headed for a 2-4, or even as much as 8, degree overall rise in climate.. well, I guess I'm missing how this <sarcasm>drastic temperature shift</sarcasm> will "cripple our economies and change how we live", unless the clothing industry is going to crash because we just don't need as many winter coats anymore... oh, maybe we'll destroy the electrical grid from all the extra wattages needed for our collective a/c units to cool those extra couple of degrees (though it's far more realistic that we'd adapt physiologically and just get used to it being a couple of degrees warmer).. it's not like our currency is going to ignite because of the increased temperature. *shrug*

Basically, enjoy the fears you seem to cherish, but don't expect the rest of us to panic because you've imagined them.

       
well, I guess I'm missing how this <sarcasm>drastic temperature shift</sarcasm> will "cripple our economies and change how we live"


2 to 4 deg C is enough to change weather patterns such that the food bowl of the USA becomes a dust bowl, ground water systems that many US cities rely on become dry because of no recharge. Disruption to food and water security is more than enough to make governments, economies and entire nations to collapse and this does not even take into consideration the flow on effects, like China demanding repayment on the 800 billion or is it trillion dollars it has currently loaned to the USA so that it can buy out other countries to turn into farms to feed its masses.

2 Deg is more than enough to cause a lot of pain to most of us and within our lifetimes. 4 Deg is enough to probably bring about that fallout style situation you spoke about.

       
And we have not even considered the effects on the middle east, which if Samson is correct that what we are seeing is a precursor that triggers Revelation prophecy and brings us into the biblical end times. The middle east is a shit fest even on a good day, let alone when someone turns off the water by damming the river up stream and cuts of supply to someone down stream. These are issues that are global in scope and are border less, the only way to solve these issues is globally.

       
Fury, you seem to have missed the part where GW doesn't only kill people in the US. I realize that there's plenty of dickheads in the world who would love to see us take a fall, but you forget, we supply easily half of the world supply of wheat. Even the Russians would die without it. So yeah, go right on ahead hating the US, but when the end comes and we decide to close up shop and stop shipping our food to the world, the wars that get fought will make everything up to now seem like a backyard brawl. And we alone possess the military capacity to come out of it with our borders intact.

Of course, if you take Revelation at its word, we won't be here in 20 years to look back on how stupid we all were because the Earth will have been destroyed by then. Global Warming will be an entirely moot point. A hot desolate rock is useless to all but a very few species.

Then again, since the whole thing has been proven a massive fraud and only the most dedicated believers in "climate change" are still clinging to it, I don't think we've much to worry about. I suspect the only lasting effect will be what Conner describes. Only it's not going to be the A/C we're doing without. It's going to be our heaters that rely on all that fossil fuel we'll have used up by then trying to stay warm in the coming ice age.

       
So yeah, go right on ahead hating the US,


No one is hating the USA here, i was just merely point out how a 2 deg warming would effect the USA directly, i could have used examples from Australia, but that would not have the same impact. Hell, my own countries predicament is already bad, Australia is already one of the driest continents on the planet, we have been in drought for about the last 10 years and have had water restrictions for at least 5 years, 140L per person per day, we have cities who are going to run out of water in the next 12 months, that are part of some of our most productive grain and beef productions areas.

I realize that there's plenty of dickheads in the world who would love to see us take a fall


This is certainly not one fall i would ever like to see befall the USA, the end result is just an unimaginable blood bath were the entire world is fighting for survival. Sorry you feel that im slamming the USA here, thats not my intention, natural fluctuation in global tempretures are not the cause of any one country, but the efftect of this are felt by every one, including the USA, this is why i feel people need to get behind measures to do something about it, more so, ones that are about adaption to a world thats 2 deg warmer, which is a very serious posibility.

we supply easily half of the world supply of wheat


Im not sure on the figures but i know its a substantial amount, especially in food aid to Africa, and i agree that if push comes to shove, every nation will do whatever it can to ensure food security in their own country at the expense of those who cannot grow their own. This is also one of the great reasons to be doing something about global warming no matter what the cause. Forget bailing out the banks because they are too important to have collapse, the rangeland of the USA is 100's of times more important to the functioning of not only the US but as you have pointed out, a lot of the rest of the world.

       
[p]

Apparently Arnold didn't get the memo!

       
You know what Fury, I think I understand what you're saying, but I just can't honestly say that I see a 2-4 degree (Celsius or Fahrenheit, or even Kelvin) making the huge difference your describing, regardless of it being an increase or a decrease in overall global temperatures. At least I have the consolation at this point of knowing that even if your somehow right, my family should be able to weather through all of it on our little ranch/farm. I suppose if it really did come to pass, we've got room for Samson and a few other select friends to come help us raise our animals & crops for our own self-sustenance ..maybe if you're really nice to me (or offer to provide something we need at that point as a bribe of sorts) I'll invite you to join us too. But I really wouldn't worry about it unless your super-crises actually comes to fruition because I'm still far more convinced that we're not actually seeing anything unnatural that will have an impact (beyond all the impact of the political fear-mongering itself) within my grand-children's lifetimes (so far, my only grandchild is only about a year and a half old, but Dragona may very well be expecting yet again which means my projection of within the lifetime of my grandchildren potentially spans another 140 years or so yet). On the other hand, the way the world is politically trying to go currently, long before Mother Nature tries to kill us all off as you describe (or as Samson implies with the coming of the next ice age, for that matter), I suspect our world is facing far greater dangers... Now, if our little star we lovingly call the sun were to eject a coronal mass large enough and in the right direction, on the other hand (how many hands are we up to?), I could see us having a much more immediate total collapse of our world's governmental and societal structures, but if that were to happen most of us wouldn't live through it long enough to even know what really happened anyway.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #16 Dec 5, 2009 11:07 pm
I highly recommend this video on the "climategate" e-mails.

       
Proof that things have already gone too far. I mean seriously. A danger to who? Haven't these people been to their science classes.... oh wait. Yeah. It's the EPA. They don't do science. They do politics. My bad.

I highly recommend this video on the "climategate" e-mails.


I highly recommend once you watch it, you ask yourself why the guy didn't bother with an actual refutation of the charges and instead did nothing but poke fun at a few radio hosts, some Fox News broadcasts, and random internet bloggers like me. Maybe if these so-called scientists actually did that and did it in a way that could be proven, there wouldn't be an issue.

Like for example, no explanation at all given for why the CRU destroyed all the raw data and now expects us to simply trust them. No explanation for why the head of the CRU was forced to step down after the fraud was exposed. No explanation for what most of us, like Rush Limbaugh said, have known is a total scam for 20 years. It's all being done so a select few people can make themselves fat filthy rich. Because if it really was a danger to anyone or to the planet in general, they'd be concentrating on doing something meaningful about it instead of imposing crippling regulations and taxes on our industries instead - all while India and China sit back and declare to the world that man made Global Warming is a hoax.

       
It's all being done so a select few people can make themselves fat filthy rich.


While i don't partake in the conspiracy theory, i will agree with you that Cap n Trade is not going to make much of a difference to global CO2 levels, all it will do, is allow business to continue polluting while bankers make it rich by buying and selling something we don't want. The reason why this is such an attractive option to governments is because they are firmly entrenched in Free Market Economics.

This kind of has me puzzled a little, because i know Samson is an advocate for FME and Ragenomics, and yet, he does not like the FME solution to the problem. Now i cannot blame him for not liking the cap n trade solution, its a pointless waste of time, designed to make a select few wealthy without really tackling the issue. The only real way to reduce pollution of any kind is through legislation, CFC's, Sulfides etc, were all dealt with through legislation, and CO2 is no different and needs to be dealt the same way.

Legislating for efficiency does not have to cost anyone anything more, better efficiency in motor vehicles, in energy consumption for our household appliances and lighting ect, and joe public will buy it because in the short to medium term it will save them on energy costs. Where possible solar hot water and electricity production should be on the roof of every new house.

We have just ordered for our house solar hot water and a 2kw electricity system, we want our ducted air con and don't see why we can't have it and still reduce our carbon footprint. Our electricity dependence from the grid will be very small, effectively about 2 hours per day and what we sell back to the grid will cover the cost of what we draw at night. Our next major expenditure will be to replace our inverter air con system with a ground pump system.

       
I think perhaps you aren't fully aware that Cap n Trade has nothing to do with businesses buying from banks to offset their carbon usage. it's about businesses being forced to pay that money to the government, and watch it simply disappear down the rabbit hole. All for absolutely no reason. It's simply a way for the Democrats to assert control over something they shouldn't be sticking their noses in. At least here. I can't say how it plays out in other countries, but I doubt very much that most industrialized nations will do it all that differently from here. When I said a "select few people" I meant basically those powerful elite types who are really running the show.

So yeah, it's not a FME solution. That's why I don't like it. A true FME solution would be one where companies realize the public wants things done differently and they cater to the change in demand. There's only one problem with that idea. The public doesn't want things done differently. At least not yet. This is why business is reluctant to invest the money necessary to switch to alternative energy. Of course, if that demand trend shifts too fast you end up with a bunch of failing companies who couldn't adapt fast enough. Like what happened to a large portion of our auto industry after the public suddenly decided they didn't want giant gas guzzling SUVs anymore. All the legislation in the world couldn't have changed that demand trend. The free market did, when gas prices got too high for people to afford.

The whole thing with legislating CFC's into oblivion was based on the same kind of junk science as Man Made Global Warming. So-called scientists everywhere convinced us all that the ozone layer was toast if we didn't stop it. So they got our governments into a big fat panic over it. However, even before the legislation went into effect and CFC production hadn't yet been reduced, the ozone hole began to close all on its own. Another one of those odd natural fluctuations we can't control or predict. The only problem is, nobody spoke up to say something and some very damaging legislation was passed that caused economic hardship in a lot of places as industry had no viable replacements available. That was a billion dollar scam that had a fairly large ripple effect. MMGW has a pricetag into the trillions, and would be utterly devastating.

Your thing with the solar panels on every roof and solar based hot water is a pipe dream here in the US. I've looked into it, and in order to get a system capable of sustaining the energy needs of the house I live in it would cost $75,000. That's nearly 1/3 of the value of the entire home, just for the roof panels. That doesn't cover the $5,000 for a solar water heating system. Folks here are already struggling with debt and with home values that have tanked. Going solar is simply not realistic. I can't even fathom how an average family of 4 could get by with a 2kw system.

Legislating solutions isn't the answer. Government is not a solution, it is the problem.

       
The_Fury said:

The only real way to reduce pollution of any kind is through legislation, CFC's, Sulfides etc, were all dealt with through legislation, and CO2 is no different and needs to be dealt the same way.

I think you've missed some very basic but very important scientific details on this one. If we allow the government to legislate away anything that produces C02 emissions like they did with CFCs, you'd be living illegally or executed summarily since you, as a human being, produce more CO2 emissions than pretty much anything made by men. Every breath you take converts the O2 in the atmosphere to the CO2 that you return to the atmosphere, are you sure you want to be legislated to death, literally?

Samson said:

Your thing with the solar panels on every roof and solar based hot water is a pipe dream here in the US. I've looked into it, and in order to get a system capable of sustaining the energy needs of the house I live in it would cost $75,000. That's nearly 1/3 of the value of the entire home, just for the roof panels. That doesn't cover the $5,000 for a solar water heating system. Folks here are already struggling with debt and with home values that have tanked. Going solar is simply not realistic. I can't even fathom how an average family of 4 could get by with a 2kw system.

I've also recently been looking into it and have found that, while also prohibitively expensive, installing a windmill on your property and only a couple of solar panels with a battery shack is a much more cost effective solution (and doesn't require being on the grid at all), but you're still talking in the neighborhood of $20-25k. As for not seeing how an average family of 4 could get by on a 2kw system, all I can say is that for the last six years my household has consistently used under 2kw according to our monthly electric bill. Maybe we're far from average, but we've got two parents and three kids and at any given time during that six year period several pets (and livestock now), plus I host my mud and such from home on computers I never turn off.. but I also try to instill my kids with good sense and good habits so I insist that lights be turned off when not actually being used and doors be closed, etc. ..on the other hand, I will admit that we hit 2.25kw one month out of that period when we moved to Texas and had contractors "borrowing" our electricity for a couple of weeks to install our new tub and a/c and such. But that's the only time we've broken the 2k mark so far. Perhaps more oddly, for us it's the water bill that seems to be difficult to keep down. *shrug* (The electric bill is roughly three times as expensive each month, but the water bill is the one we have trouble keeping below 2000-2500 gallons since we moved to the farm, before that it ran us about 1000-1500 gallons each month.)

       
Yeah. That whole think with the EPA set to rule CO2 is a dangerous substance is going to put a huge cramp in everyone's fascination with breathing. It's also going to kill an awful lot of trees, since they feed on CO2. Symbiosis seems lost on these people entirely. Then again, I happen to live with a person who insists the goal of these people is to kill off as many of us as possible, and before seeing that EPA thing I thought he was as nuts as a 9/11 truther.

As far as 2kw, maybe I'm really missing something here, but we are talking about 2,000 watts of electricity, yes? My microwave alone east 1200. That leaves barely 800 left for the TV, DVD player, DirecTV unit, and computers. That doesn't seem like it would be anywhere near enough. I think before we spend any more time on this we need to establish what a "2kw system" means.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #22 Dec 6, 2009 7:35 pm
I highly recommend once you watch it, you ask yourself why the guy didn't bother with an actual refutation of the charges and instead did nothing but poke fun at a few radio hosts, some Fox News broadcasts, and random internet bloggers like me. Maybe if these so-called scientists actually did that and did it in a way that could be proven, there wouldn't be an issue.

Use of the term "trick": the guy showed that the term is used widely in the scientific community in publicly-available peer-reviewed documents in a diverse range of disciplines.

Use of the phrase "hide the decline": the guy showed that this was in reference to proxy temperature data based on tree rings, not global temperatures. He points out that tree-ring data disagrees with thermometer data - only one of them can be right. There is a debate over whether tree-rings should be used to gauge temperature, as there are a lot of other factors involved with tree growth. He points out that tree-rings have little to do with whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.

On the statement "we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment", I'll quote the guy:
Trenberth was talking about cooling that was occurring in 2008-2009, the explanation most climatologists give is the obvious one: the Earth has been cooling for the last couple of years because we've been at the [peak] of the 11 year solar cycle and last year was a particularly strong La Nina year. [...] Trenberth argues that the warming affect of carbon dioxide should be able to overcome these temporary cooling influences. [...] two other climatologists disagreed with him. [...] Trenberth was referring to a paper he had written [...] expressing publicly the same doubts he'd expressed privately.


The above are all verifiable, and address the concerns that various radio/TV hosts seem to have over the language used in particular e-mails. As for why the vlogger didn't refute particular charges, see my next point.

Like for example, no explanation at all given for why the CRU destroyed all the raw data and now expects us to simply trust them. No explanation for why the head of the CRU was forced to step down after the fraud was exposed.

What about: "I'm pleased to see that Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, has stepped down while all this is investigated." or "Whatever skullduggery there is will be investigated."

You see, the point of the video is not to excuse or expose the researchers involved, nor is it to investigate their actions. That's all being done by appropriately qualified people who will spend a great deal of time going through all the e-mails and other evidence related to the allegations of fraud. You see, it is suspicious that the data's gone missing, and fraud has no place in science. Unlike Glenn Beck or Alex Jones, though, the vlogger understands that fraud is a serious matter, and requires a bit more investigation than just reading one or two e-mails out of context to your audience.

The point of the video is to illustrate that these e-mails don't discredit all the findings of climate scientists in the last 30, 40, 50 years. It's to illustrate that the supposedly damning e-mail snippets that are being paraded around by skeptics are, when taken in context, not so damning after all. Furthermore, it's not letting the CRU scientists off the hook - rather, the person who made it seems to be waiting to see what the investigation into this issue yields before making any judgments on the people involved.

No explanation for what most of us, like Rush Limbaugh said, have known is a total scam for 20 years. It's all being done so a select few people can make themselves fat filthy rich.

There's a job going at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences at the moment with the title, "Senior Research Associate" and a salary of £36,469 (USD$60,179.65). Senior lecturer positions offer salaries of £52,086 (USD$85,943.73). Perhaps you were referring to Al Gore, but his making money off of climate change doesn't discredit the work of scientists who are not becoming "fat filthy rich" off of it.

Limbaugh claims that the hacked e-mails are "too, too, too elaborate to be a hoax". As the maker of the video points out, if faking several 1000 e-mails is too elaborate to be a hoax, what does that make "faking millions of points of data in thousands of scientific papers in dozens of different scientific fields and cross-matching them so that they all tell a story that's 180 degrees opposed to reality and making sure that no-one blabs about it"?

Because if it really was a danger to anyone or to the planet in general, they'd be concentrating on doing something meaningful about it instead of imposing crippling regulations and taxes on our industries instead - all while India and China sit back and declare to the world that man made Global Warming is a hoax.

Both India and China have announced emissions reduction targets. Seems to be the exact opposite of "declaring to the world" that global warming is a hoax.

As for doing something meaningful rather than imposing crippling regulations and industry taxes:
Under the [US SO2 trading program], which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50% from 1980 levels by 2007. Some experts argue that the cap-and-trade system of SO2 emissions reduction has reduced the cost of controlling acid rain by as much as 80% versus source-by-source reduction.

Seems to me that worked pretty well - not sure how crippled the SO2-emitting industries are now, but it certainly achieved something meaningful (and did it cheaply!).

Rooftop solar is a crock, by the way, and the only reason it's possible in Australia is because of ridiculous government subsidies. It's about as effectual as having a wind turbine on top of your home. Real progress in renewable energy is going to come in the form of full-blown wind and solar stations, among other things.

       
You sound like you have something to be gained by continuing this fraud that anyone with any common sense knows is bull. Several friends of mine out there who have blogged similar entries about this whole thing have been hit by similar responses, almost as though whoever you are you're going around trying to discredit the people who outed you all when you should be trying to discover how such a massive fraud could be perpetrated like this without anyone realizing it.

Rooftop solar is a crock, by the way, and the only reason it's possible in Australia is because of ridiculous government subsidies. It's about as effectual as having a wind turbine on top of your home. Real progress in renewable energy is going to come in the form of full-blown wind and solar stations, among other things.


We can at least agree on this though. Australia does have some rather ridiculously large government subsidies. But here in the US, real progress on wind and solar won't happen until the people who are blocking construction of those kinds of stations get shoved aside. The "not in my backyard" syndrome many self proclaimed environmentalists have is rather hypocritical.

       
Samson said:

Yeah. That whole think with the EPA set to rule CO2 is a dangerous substance is going to put a huge cramp in everyone's fascination with breathing. It's also going to kill an awful lot of trees, since they feed on CO2. Symbiosis seems lost on these people entirely. Then again, I happen to live with a person who insists the goal of these people is to kill off as many of us as possible, and before seeing that EPA thing I thought he was as nuts as a 9/11 truther.

Yup. I'd have to agree there too, before seeing this EPA directive I'd have thought the EPA were a bunch of loonies but mostly harmless, now.. well, it's not nearly as hard to see your roommate's perspective.

Samson said:

As far as 2kw, maybe I'm really missing something here, but we are talking about 2,000 watts of electricity, yes? My microwave alone east 1200. That leaves barely 800 left for the TV, DVD player, DirecTV unit, and computers. That doesn't seem like it would be anywhere near enough. I think before we spend any more time on this we need to establish what a "2kw system" means.

Oops, I'm sorry, I think I was thinking in terms of 2k KW (2 MW) rather than 2 KW/month. I'm not sure that a "2kw system" would only provide 2 KW on a monthly basis, but if so you're dead on. Even if it's 2 KW hourly that's pushing it for some hours. If we say, by means of example, my family averages 1750 KW / month, that's an average of 58 and a third KW daily or roughly 2.4 KW hourly. I could see reducing things a touch and maybe getting it down to 2 KW hourly, but we'd still be talking just shy of 1.5 megawatts monthly. (Means eating out more often and getting lucky with the weather, I suppose... ;))

Samson said:

Anonymous said:

Rooftop solar is a crock, by the way, and the only reason it's possible in Australia is because of ridiculous government subsidies. It's about as effectual as having a wind turbine on top of your home. Real progress in renewable energy is going to come in the form of full-blown wind and solar stations, among other things.

We can at least agree on this though. Australia does have some rather ridiculously large government subsidies. But here in the US, real progress on wind and solar won't happen until the people who are blocking construction of those kinds of stations get shoved aside. The "not in my backyard" syndrome many self proclaimed environmentalists have is rather hypocritical.

Well, if we're talking about straight rooftop based solar power I can't argue at all. My own personal research fully supports that position. On the other hand, combining a partially solar based solution with a wind turbine or two and a battery shack is actually quite feasible if a bit expensive in upfront costs. If you can manage the $20-25k initial outlay, the ~$5k every 5-10 years for battery replacements is actually comparable (if not slightly cheaper) than buying the power from the electric company in my area. So, we're still not talking about saving any money, but it does get you a big step closer to being off the grid completely and it does work as a huge step toward total self-sufficiency, though you really still need your own water source too along with crops and livestock and the willingness to do things yourself the old fashioned (we're talking going back to roughly colonial times here) way though. But it is doable.

       
3kW is enough to take a modern energy conscious household off the grid assuming you have storage, 4kW is enough to take any average household off the grid assuming storage of course. @Conner, living on the coast, wind is an attractive option for us, i just don't think my neighbors would like to see a couple of towers in our backyard and this is the only reason why we did not go for the solar and wind mix. We started with a bigger inverter and less panels, so we can expand the system, and next tax year we intend to double the amount of panels and have a 4kW system and the following year take it to 5kW which is all the space we have on our roof for panels

And while some of you may not like tariffs and or gov subsidies, it is an effective way of getting uptake of new technology and to stimulate the market and bring about the economies of scale needed to make it main stream and affordable to all, Germany has some of the highest uptake of solar because of its feed in tariffs, which is a better way to spend the money than on tariffs and subsidies for agricultural producers that both our governments feel compelled to protect.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31