Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

... what you said...

I agree.
I'm at a loss for answers right now as to whether AGW is real. But its obviously important.

I won't refute that the data is fragile. But I've been burned by fragile data before. There might be a 90% chance that we will be fine just burning all the coal, oil and other carbon based products we can find... but until we know for sure, is it really the responsible thing to do?

All I'm saying is, if you need to work on a circuit and you don't know whether its live or not... even if its probably not live, if you had inadequate equipment to check it out, is it worth the risk to just start fumbling with wires?
We don't really hear about all the times people do that and end up OK... what we hear about is the people who get fried. But because we don't know the ratio of people who get fried against the people who don't get fried, is it a risk we should be willing to take? I don't want to get fried. I want to find adequate data before I go sticking the perverbeal fingers of the entire human race into an untested bundle of wires.

There is a responsible approach to this problem for now, but its going to cost money and people are going to need to use discipline. That's all there is to it... until we find adequate data to support one side or the other.

I think to dismiss the issue is irresponsible.

Originally Posted by ZMKA

I'm at a loss for answers right now as to whether AGW is real. But its obviously important.

The first sentence makes the second one nonsense.

I won't refute that the data is fragile. But I've been burned by fragile data before. There might be a 90% chance that we will be fine just burning all the coal, oil and other carbon based products we can find... but until we know for sure, is it really the responsible thing to do?

Back in 1975 should we have given up US sovereignty to the UN, taxed our industries back to the 18th century and generally run people's lives for them to save us from "the coming ice age". After all, we didn't understand that either and its importance was proclaimed by every scare-mongerer on the planet.

All I'm saying is, if you need to work on a circuit and you don't know whether its live or not... even if its probably not live, if you had inadequate equipment to check it out, is it worth the risk to just start fumbling with wires?

It's the AGW crowd that want's to "start fumbling with wires".

I have just spent about two hours reading a document published by the BNP denouncing the whole AGW and Copenhagen scam.
The document is 40 pages long and if one deletes the words BNP and British National Party and substituting the "Common Sense Party" (For this document), then this makes by far the most literate argument against AGW that I've read so far. In particular the Copenhagen objectives are described in detail, and thus far I have found no claims or data which are incompatible with denier blogs.
The link is:
http://bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/Global-W...fing-Paper.pdf


Also, today the Russians are suggesting that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock. Gotta love it. This is going Serial.

Thanks for posting that link. It's insane what's going on. I mean when you step back from it and just think for a second, objectively, the whole worldwide carbon tax thing, global warming caused by humans and the EPA coming out right before Copenhagen and telling us that carbon dioxide is a health risk, proposed carbon allotment cards for most humans on the planet. It's just insane. Madness is a better term.

Chris L

It very well may be the biggest scam in all of history perpetrated by crooks like Gore. A blatant wealth redistribution scam used by greedy lazy people who are covetous of the prosperity of the successful, so instead of embarking on an honest endeavor to succeed for themselves they just cook up a scam to steal from everyone else.

Pass

A persons profession does not dictate or indicate the type of person that they are. Many 'preachers' have been exposed to be scoundrels. Just because someone claims to be a scientist does not make them honest or mean that they have an inherent set of high morals or ethics. Everyone is different, some are honest and some are not, no matter what they do. And just because someone may be financially successful or successful in any way does not mean that they are just trying to keep the less fortunate down, in fact many of them are very generous gracious and honest.
The emails are certainly somewhat of a smoking gun for many of them. It is unfortunate for the honest ones.

And now some breaking news.

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs.

The Hadley Center for Climate Change is a different bunch of AGW pushers, NOT the CRU. Even their NAME suggests they are working with a bias. EDIT: With such a blatantly biased name I must assume they are not even AWARE of their bias or they wouldn't let it hang out so much. They are walking around with their fly open and don't even know it.

P.S. I note that denmason referred to this above. It didn't sink in when I first read his post.

I poked around the net a bit after Obama arrived in Copenhagen for COP15. A recap article on one of the news sites stressed that the partial agreement reached was not legally binding. I found this interesting only after reading a blog or two where some bloggers were insisting that if Obama had or at any time in the future would sign an accord, treaty, legally binding document with another country or other form of governmental body without the consent of congress, such an act would be treason.

Can anyone else comment on this?

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I poked around the net a bit after Obama arrived in Copenhagen for COP15. A recap article on one of the news sites stressed that the partial agreement reached was not legally binding. I found this interesting only after reading a blog or two where some bloggers were insisting that if Obama had or at any time in the future would sign an accord, treaty, legally binding document with another country or other form of governmental body without the consent of congress, such an act would be treason.

Can anyone else comment on this?

Chris L

I would think that if a president (any president ) would sign or do anything that would lead to the possible loss of the sovereignty of the United States then said president would be guilty of Treason

Originally Posted by ChrisL

if Obama had or at any time in the future would sign an accord, treaty, legally binding document with another country or other form of governmental body without the consent of congress, such an act would be treason.

How could it be legally binding? who would enforce it? USA is supreme! Might makes right!

PS who are we to tell The Earth that it's too warm, too cool, or just right?