Climategate!

[sgreger1]

You've got all these people going through the IPCC report with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes and they found a typographical error that transposed 2 numbers (like you've never done that before) and this is your excuse to throw out the other 99% of the data that doesn't have mistakes in it.

I don't think that the point is to throw out or disprove all of the data. The point is to prove that there is pattern of dishonesty that shows that the movement has more of a political agenda then a environmental one. You have to admit that this issue has major implications for the power structure of the world and if one was to want to gain power this would be plausible route.

This is exactly what I am saying. Obviously don't throw out all the data, but this sudden rush to say that we are sure this is happening and we can accurately model it so lets pass new taxes seems a bit hasty.


Justin:

Look, if your don't think the BBC, or timeonline or any other media outlet is reliable than I don't know what to say. It's not like i'm linking to Glenn Beck's website or something.

Also, if it's not peer reviewed, it should not be in any official report. To fearmonger based on non peer reviewed literature makes me trust them less.

The IPCC only exists to lend a fake sense of credibility to this whole thing. They are (in some cases) taking data from less than trustworthy sources and publishing it in official reports saying that the glaciers will all be gone in 20 years. Thus adding a false sense of urgency to the issue.

[truthwolf1]

I think I might be stuck in the mindset that this is going to be another swindle and want to see some info on the pro carbon tax info.

What is the expected outcome? and the science of how it will work?

The glaciers stop melting after 5 years or decade?

Will we change the earths temperature backwards one degree or stabelize it?

Will the biggest polluters be paying the most?

Is this going to open the door for the Energy police and if so how much does a average citizen contribute? or even people in general driving compared to smokestacks?

[sgreger1]

I think I might be stuck in the mindset that this is going to be another swindle and want to see some info on the pro carbon tax info.

What is the expected outcome? and the science of how it will work?

The glaciers stop melting after 5 years or decade?

Will we change the earths temperature backwards one degree or stabelize it?

Will the biggest polluters be paying the most?

Is this going to open the door for the Energy police and if so how much does a average citizen contribute? or even people in general driving compared to smokestacks?

These are exactly my concerns. Think about it, if they can successfully demonize C02 and get a control grid around anything that emits C02, that means they will have every company,and every person under some level of regulation, whether it be forcing them to buy carbon credits or something else.


What is it they want to do? Do they want to tax the shiat out of the biggest polluters? Do they want to tax oil companies and use the money to invest in research for alternate fuel sources?

No, they want cap and trade. I say if we were to have the government do something, it should be to heavly tax the oil companies who are making record profits and use the money to invest in green energy research.

Now, is that constitutional? Taking from one industry and using that money to try and shut down said industry? Probably not. Will it be bad for the economy? Yes, since the largest shareholders of companies like EXXON are the average Joe via their 401k plan.

Would it be best for the future? Yes.



At the end of the day, I still think that our concern should not be C02 or warming, because the planet will adjust accordingly, it's done so before when faced with threats much bigger than humans and C02 from cars.
What we should focus on is pollution in general, and also getting us off of oil and onto an alt energy source that WE have perfected (so we can then sell it to the rest of the world).

[RRK]

I think I might be stuck in the mindset that this is going to be another swindle and want to see some info on the pro carbon tax info.

What is the expected outcome? and the science of how it will work?

The glaciers stop melting after 5 years or decade?

Will we change the earths temperature backwards one degree or stabelize it?

Will the biggest polluters be paying the most?

Is this going to open the door for the Energy police and if so how much does a average citizen contribute? or even people in general driving compared to smokestacks?

I'd say those are the right type of questions.

I imagine a world were the price of a unit of energy is the basis for currency. If that were the case the government/s would have to control energy production or at least distribution to regulate currency. Pollution/Carbon credits could replace the tax system or could add a level to the local/state/federal structure. Cost of living could go way up in order to influence population levels. I think pollution levels would decrease or level off on the scale of 50-100 years and I would imagine it would have a small effect on global temperatures.

This is just a creative guess and isn't based on any specific evidence.

Oh, and this is not my ideal future.

[sgreger1]

I'd say those are the right type of questions.

I imagine a world were the price of a unit of energy is the basis for currency. If that were the case the government/s would have to control energy production or at least distribution to regulate currency. Pollution/Carbon credits could replace the tax system or could add a level to the local/state/federal structure. Cost of living could go way up in order to influence population levels. I think pollution levels would decrease or level off on the scale of 50-100 years and I would imagine it would have a small effect on global temperatures.

This is just a creative guess and isn't based on any specific evidence.

Oh, and this is not my ideal future.

Pres Obama:"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

Politifact Truth Ometer - True

From wiki debate, they advocate a direct tax on polluters as opposed to a cap-and-trade system for the following reasons:

Emissions trading wrongly allows companies to buy right to pollute.
"The Case Against Carbon Trading". Rising Tide. Mar. 2002 - "Carbon Trading IS an Excuse to Avoid Real Emissions Reductions. The hopelessly compromised Kyoto Protocol now allows countries to meet all their emissions reductions with carbon credits bought through three forms of carbon trading; Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism, International Emissions Trade. Some countries will certainly choose to buy credits rather than make any serious attempt to reduce their underlying dependency on fossil fuels."

Emissions trading doesn't ensure reductions in local emissions Kevin E. McCarthy. "Pros and cons of air emissions credit tradings". 9 Oct. 2000
- "The principal argument against trading programs is that they do not guarantee that improvements to air quality occur in the [local] areas that are most affected by air pollution. Some of the existing trading programs, such as the federal acid rain program for sulfur dioxide, allow trades over a very large region. While such programs do improve air quality in the aggregate, they do not necessarily reduce emissions at sources that make the greatest contribution to local air pollution and its resulting health problems."

Cap-and-trade systems create emissions caps arbitrarily Bailey. "Carbon Taxes versus Carbon Markets". 18 May 2007 - "Carbon taxes also avoid the baseline quandary that bedevils carbon markets. For example, signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are supposed to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below what they emitted in 1990. Why? That goal has no relationship to any specific environmental policy objective."
Carbon tax can be implemented much faster than cap-and-trade - A carbon tax is simple enough that it can be implemented immediately. Emissions trading takes much more time. In the context of global warming, immediacy is very important.

The Financial Times published an article about cap-and-trade systems which argued that "Carbon markets create a muddle" and "...leave much room for unverifiable manipulation". Other criticists point out that emissions trading schemes creates new uncertainties and risks, which can be commodified by means of derivatives, thereby creating a new speculative market.


Basically another oppertunity to create a bubble and screw everyone via derivatives.

[justintempler]

Justin:

Look, if your don't think the BBC, or timeonline or any other media outlet is reliable than I don't know what to say. It's not like i'm linking to Glenn Beck's website or something.

sgreger1,

So you got nothing?

You can't back up your views with facts so you resort to an appeal to authority.. it came from the BBC so it must be true?

But wait a minute, How do you decide which stories to believe? When the BBC or timesonline have stories that say global warming is caused by humans, and they have stories that say it's not caused by humans, then your deciding factor is whichever story you like?

So the actual truth don't matter? Enjoy your fantasy.

[sgreger1]

Justin:

Look, if your don't think the BBC, or timeonline or any other media outlet is reliable than I don't know what to say. It's not like i'm linking to Glenn Beck's website or something.

sgreger1,

So you got nothing?

You can't back up your views with facts so you resort to an appeal to authority.. it came from the BBC so it must be true?

But wait a minute, How do you decide which stories to believe? When the BBC or timesonline have stories that say global warming is caused by humans, and they have stories that say it's not caused by humans, then your deciding factor is whichever story you like?

So the actual truth don't matter? Enjoy your fantasy.

That was the whole point Justin. The sources I listed are known to be supporters of AGW, but EVEN THEY see some shady business going on. They, like most honest people, just want to make sure this whole thing is done in an honest way, which more evidence seems to be coming out that they are not.


The earth is full of giant continents we live on that float atop a giant layer of hot lava, we are hurling around in the vaccum of space with millions of pieces of debri flying all around (some of which hit us from time to time), we are constantly bombarded by energy in every wavelength from the giant burning hydrogen bomb in the sky, and the earth has had several ice ages, periods of sudden warming etc. For these people to come out and say shit like there will be no more ice in 20 years does nothing but scare people, and when people find out it was a lie, and they actually under reported it by 300 years, it tends to piss them off.

[sgreger1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/...climate_change

GENEVA – A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday


I suppose now the UN and the Associated Press is in on my conspiracy as well? I mean just because the UN admits it and the AP reports on it doesn't mean it's true, right?



EDIT:



Obama is doing the same thing on climate change Bush did.

It turns out that President George W. Bush has already paved the way for President Obama. In September 2007, Bush convened the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington, D.C. The meeting included representatives from the world’s 16 biggest economies: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, plus the European Union. Collectively, these countries emit about 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. President Bush urged the representatives to set a long term goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and argued that the best way to address climate change was through developing low-carbon energy technologies.

Last April, the Obama administration convened the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. Obama’s forum membership is identical to Bush’s meeting membership.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/1...ollows-in-bush

[justintempler]

So let me get this straight an official statement acknowledging a typo is your proof that they where lying?

When you said the IPCC used 3 sources and that there was a mandate that it had to be peer reveiwed.

Where you lying? or was it just a mistake?

Your arguments remind me of Young Earth Creationists,
They use the argument because Piltdown man was a fraud, that is proof that scienctists are part of a conspiracy and that evolution is a big lie.

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-de...layan-glaciers

20 January 10
Climate Denial Industry Blowing Hot Air On Himalayan Glaciers

The climate denial industry is once again trying to make a huge to-do about a tiny error by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With the Climategate Swifthack episode fading from the limelight, after a thorough debunking of far-fetched accusations that scientists made up global warming, the climate science attack machine now wants the world to focus on one paragraph out of a 938-page, three-year-old report.

The contrarians are questioning a single reference to Himalayan glaciers included in a 2007 IPCC report that does not meet the IPCC’s well-established evidentiary standards.

Here is their alleged smoking gun: The second of three 2007 reports from the IPCC included a statement that the likelihood of Himalayan glaciers disappearing "by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

But the reference to Himalayan glaciers melting at that early date didn’t originate from a peer-reviewed study, meaning it should not have appeared in the IPCC report.

Sure, that’s slightly embarrassing. But it isn’t grounds to declare the entire library of climate science a fraud. The IPCC’s findings have been validated and substantiated by assessments conducted by leading scientific institutions the world over.

The real news here is that a single ‘error’ was discovered in just one of the IPCC’s reports, collectively reams of paper thick, and the ‘error’ isn’t an error at all. The Himalayan glaciers are melting. There is no debate about that in the scientific community.

The fact is that, since glaciers are complex systems, scientists can’t tell exactly how fast they will disappear. That they are melting, and that sea levels are rising, is irrefutable.

But that won’t stop the contrarians from attempting to inflate the importance of a tiny mistake to further their ongoing efforts to smear climate scientists. Right-wing blogs say this tiny error proves the IPCC’s lack of credibility. Never mind the validity of thousands of scientific studies published over decades by scientists around the world. The attack machine says this proves the entire process of international scientific assessment of climate change is flawed. Really?

Here are the facts: Melting glaciers are a leading contributor to rising sea levels. An accurate understanding of the relationship between global warming and glaciers is critical since melting threatens to exacerbate water shortages around the globe.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences understands this, and has monitored the melting of glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau closely since they are a critical source of freshwater for millions of people.

Their extensive efforts to study hundreds of Tibetan glaciers between 1990-2005 shows that “95% of the glaciers have been retreating, and those numbers are very consistent with what we’ve seen in other mountain ranges around the world,” according to glaciologist Lonnie Thompson.

Thompson, who has conducted 56 expeditions in 16 different countries to study the extensive climate history recorded in glacial ice, explained to reporters on a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists today that 95-100% of the world’s glaciers are retreating, from the northern Arctic, throughout the tropics, all the way to Antarctica.

Despite the deniers’ attempts to attack scientists, the evidence of glacial melting stands.

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda,” Thompson says.

A lot of new scientific information has come out since the IPCC review of science for the 2007 report in question. We now know that, in the case of many of these glaciers, surface melting is allowing water to reach the base of glaciers, causing them to melt more quickly.

“That will cause sea levels to rise much faster than we had projected,” Thompson confirms. “Glaciers are very dynamic, and they are responding very rapidly.”

Indeed, the sea level rise predictions in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment are in fact much too conservative. More recent studies predict that sea levels will rise much more quickly, and higher, than IPCC has predicted. 3-D ice sheet modeling efforts are underway at the Hadley Center, Los Alamos National Lab and elsewhere, and the early indications are far from reassuring.

“Scientists are very conservative people, and they will tend to understate, rather than overstate, their findings," Thompson notes. "IPCC tends to take a much more conservative view than you might otherwise find” in a review of more recent climate science, he says.

Don’t expect to hear that from the climate denial industry, though.

[sgreger1]

So let me get this straight an official statement acknowledging a typo is your proof that they where lying?



Your arguments remind me of Young Earth Creationists,
They use the argument because Piltdown man was a fraud, that is proof that scienctists are part of a conspiracy and that evolution is a big lie.

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-de...layan-glaciers

Jesus Justin, listen to my words so you understand where I am coming from:


YOU: So let me get this straight an official statement acknowledging a typo is your proof that they where lying?

ME: For you to call this a typo is completely unfair, it's not like some intern typed the date wrong. They published non peer reviewed junk data and it passed through all the official channels without being caught, no one fact checked the claims, and it made people believe there would be no more glaciers in 20 years.

Then, to add insult to injury, when other climatologists called them out on it, the IPCC chairman wrote their claims off as "Voodoo science", until he eventually had to take it back.

For a claim as big as climate change is, I expect a higher degree of accuracy and professionalism from these organizations.


I am not saying they were lying. I am saying that this IPCC published in it's official IPCC report something as though it were a fact. The IPCC spends its days talking about how they have a strict peer review process yada yada yada. But this got into their report, without any fact checking, or peer-reviewing of the data.

So the world is looking to them for reliable data, and they come out with their report which reads that the glaciers will be gone in 2 decades, and sea levels will rise and cause a lot of trouble. However, although glaciers are melting, the doomsday scenario being pushed in the official report is inaccurate and not based on any peer reviewed data.

Hint: This is called fear-mongering. It's like Bush saying Sadam will blow up the Himalayas in 20 years w/ WMD's if we don't act quickly. Well, other countries also say he has WMD's, and there is a consensus in the intel community that says he has them, so we must act quickly.....
But then some evidence comes out that this whole intel gathering thing seems to have a lot of holes and seems more politically motivated than anything.

We already farked the chicken once using that logic, like the jews say "never again".


YOU: When you said the IPCC used 3 sources and that there was a mandate that it had to be peer reviewed.
Where you lying? or was it just a mistake?

ME: No, I was citing a direct quote from new sources such as the BBC, AP etc. I have to believe what they say, because I am not a climatologist, or buddies with the IPCC chairman. Are you saying that they are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and making this up? EVEN IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED, IT ADMITS THAT THE DATA WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE FINAL REPORT.

But the reference to Himalayan glaciers melting at that early date didn’t originate from a peer-reviewed study, meaning it should not have appeared in the IPCC report.

So not sure where you are coming from with your question, since the article you provided supports what I stated about how this prediction did not belong in the report.


YOU: Your arguments remind me of Young Earth Creationists,
They use the argument because Piltdown man was a fraud, that is proof that scienctists are part of a conspiracy and that evolution is a big lie.

ME: Look, I trust that there is no way every scientist could be part of some conspiracy. I am not saying "OOh, look! They messed up, so everything they've ever said MUST be wrong! Throw out the whole theory". No, that would be retarded.

I am just saying that this further proves my point that there is some level of foul play happening here, as proved by the fact that junk science like this gets into official IPCC reports, and the climategate emails where they discuss how to shut out skeptics etc.

If scientists spent their time working on alternative fuels as opposed to finding reason to empower the government to regulate Co2 emissions, we would have already solved this whole problem.


--------------------------
Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief


Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ate-chief.html

[justintempler]

... and the climategate emails where they discuss how to shut out skeptics etc....

I thought about making a big long rant but decided against it.

Here's your problem. The climategate emails were discussing how to shut out the junk science that you spend so much time criticizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_an...as_controversy

http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas

http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

If you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to find some better science to debunk man made global climate change.

We don't fix what you label junk science with even more junk science.

[sgreger1]

... and the climategate emails where they discuss how to shut out skeptics etc....

I thought about making a big long rant but decided against it.

Here's your problem. The climategate emails were discussing how to shut out the junk science that you spend so much time criticizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_an...as_controversy

http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas

http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

If you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to find some better science to debunk man made global climate change.

We don't fix what you label junk science with even more junk science.

Instead the IPCC reports stuff from magazine articles and uses non peer reviewed content in official reports and predictions, right? You can't complain about junk science and then use junk science to prove AGW. There is a lot of legit data out there pointing towards AGW, so why would they choose to use this fake data? Because it makes the situation seem more dire and therefore more scary for people who hear from an official report that the ice will be gone in 20 years.

Look i'll give you the fact that there is a lot of junk science out there debunking this, so it is of no value. And i understand it annoys real scientists trying to do their work. But you have to admit that publishing junk science in official reports to make them sound scarier and exaggerate the situation makes you no better than those you oppose so vehemently.

[Roo]

El Nino is putting Vancouver BC in panic mode just in time for the Olympics. They are putting down layers of hay over Whistler in time for a brief cold spell next week when the snow machines can try to save the big event. Unrelated, yes. Just thought I would share. Its been almost 60 degrees for a week here in Seattle. Warmest January on record, but as I already said, this can be explained by cyclical weather patterns.

As with the age-old nature vs nurture debate, the most logical angle appears to be a combination of natural and human causality. I'd be glad to see you two agree on one miniscule point of this debate. Consider it a dare. (Maybe you have, I don't follow it closely)

[justintempler]

Sorry,

The mistake had a footnote that can be traced back to the original source document.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/001...65/106523E.pdf
on page 66

This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350.

It took two years to uncover something that can be explained away as a typo? That's what's nice about footnotes, the ability to uncover the source if any questions arise.

It's obvious to me this is nothing more than a cheap attempt to derail the upcoming energy bill.

[justintempler]

I get tired of the arguments by the politicians and the endless mouthpieces that keep telling us it's a conspiracy to take away our wealth and just relax and do nothing and everything will be fine and can be solved with idiots like Sarah Palin yelling Drill Baby Drill!

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/clima...-and-delusion/

Climate, Oil, Reality and Delusion
Dec 8th, 2009
By James Howard Kunstler

Against a greater welter and flow of incoherence jerking the nation this way and that way en route to collapse comes “ClimateGate,” the latest excuse for screaming knuckleheads to defend what has already been lost. It is also yet another distraction from the emergency agenda that the United States faces – namely the urgent re-scaling, re-localizing, and de-globalizing of our daily activities.

What seems to be at stake for the knuckleheads is their identity, their idea of what it means to be an American, which boils down to being an organism so specially blessed and entitled that it is excused from paying attention to reality. There were no doubt plenty of counterparts among the Mayans when the weather changed and their crops failed, and certainly the Romans had their share of identity psychotics who doubted reality even when Alaric the Visigoth was hoisting off their household treasure.

Reality doesn’t care if we are on-board with its mandates or not. The human race has to get with whatever program reality is serving up at a particular time. Are we shocked to learn that scientists fight among themselves and cheat as much as congressmen? Does that really change the relationships we understand about parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere and the weather?

What the people of the world can do or will do about a change in climate is something else. My guess is that the undertow of entropy is now too great to provoke any meaningful unified change in behavior. The collapse of the US economy is too close to the horizon, and the so-called developing nations will have problems equally severe. In the meantime, it is unlikely that any of the major players will burn less coal and oil, or not cheat on each other even if they pledge to burn less. People who are not knuckleheads will make the practical arrangements that they can. These will, by definition, be localized, small-scale, and non-global communities, doing what they would have to do anyway.

A parallel identity mania afflicts those who have decided that the Bakken shale oil deposits and the Marcellus gas play will allow the USA to cancel any modifications to our living arrangements. This cohort of knuckleheads wants to believe the public relations of the oil and gas industry, and in particular the bankers who are arranging the financing for these ventures. The facts are irrelevant to their identity-claims (that the USA has limitless energy resources). In fact, the Bakken shale formation is unlikely to produce more than a few hundred thousand barrels of oil a day in a nation used to burning about twenty million. A few hundred thousand might mean a lot if were only used to light kerosene lamps, but it is unlikely to keep the faithful motoring off to WalMart and Walt Disney World – which is the exact expectation of the knuckleheads.

Shale gas is a similar story. It will be too expensive to get out of the tight rock at a flow that will allow business as usual to continue. It certainly won’t be produced at under $10 a unit, and the nation’s comprehensive bankruptcy accelerates every day, making it less likely that the public can pay premium prices within the framework of our current living arrangement.

The Green Shoots crowd – a sub-category of identity maniacs, who think the USA is immune to the laws of history and physics – has made common cause with the oil and climate knuckleheads to proclaim that we are returning to normal, back to the “consumer” orgy, the suburban sprawl nexus of McHousing and miracle mortgages, and new frontiers of corporate profit-raking.

They are tragically wrong. Instead, we’re headed into the wildest king-hell debt workout that the world has ever seen, which will propel a lot of people used to working in air-conditioned cubicles into a world made by hand. We march day by day into the great holiday season with mortgages going unpaid and the credit cards getting cancelled and money disappearing and the fears and grievances mounting. Pretty soon, the folks doing “God’s work” at Goldman Sachs (and their tribal kin on Wall Street) will announce their annual bonuses (because they are publicly-held companies, which have to do so). Won’t that be a galvanizing moment for us all?

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

December 8, 2009