Climategate!

[justintempler]

It's true, I fight against anything Al Gore is involved with. :wink:

...but to completely dismiss this information is the opposite of skepticism.

See then your not a skeptic either. :roll:

I'm not a fan of Al Gore but I haven't chosen to automatically fight anything he is for. :wink:

[shikitohno]

Read the link, and as usual, could have dismissed climategate out of hand. Let's see a serious scientist come out and say that global warming doesn't exist, and have him not be American. I feel like the majority of those saying such things as just doing it because they're getting paid by groups that would have to change their business in the US if it was accepted. There doesn't seem to be much debate over whether or not it exists anywhere but the US. There are a couple countries, but overall, we seem like backwards yahoos on this one.

[MojoQuestor]

Submitted for the sake of discussion, the "Manufactured Doubt industry", etc.

If all this has been covered, oh well, shrug, wtf, woo.

edit: the actual link would be helpful, non? Glad that coffee got done.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1389

[RRK]

I'm not a fan of Al Gore but I haven't chosen to automatically fight anything he is for. :wink:

I was just joking.

[sgreger1]

I'd doubt the validity of "hacked emails." I can type up something that I say is from the pentagon if I learn one email address from there, and say that the governments by hiding the fact that Hitler's alive and living in Miami selling coke. Doesn't mean it's true. Let's see these so called hacked email posted with full header info, and have the validity of the header info verified as coming from the alleged source by a computer professional with some credentials to back up his statements.

And most of the data there in the video only covers maybe twenty or thirty years. As was said, look at a wider range, and the graph changes quite a bit.

Wow it amazes me how much of a following this GW thing has got. The facility that got hacked admits to the validity of these emails, there is no question about whether they are real or not. And the fact that a major research center that had contact with the ICCP made up flat out fake data to push a political agenda, and all you people can do is defend such criminal actions.

Then, Al Gore took it a step further and made a whole scare-tactic documentary hoping to strike fear in people and make the claim that you can only save us from imminent destruction if you pay a tax to him.




How do you global warming alarmists not see that they are just trying to create yet another fiat currency with these carbon credits, so that the big corps can trade it around and make more money out of thin air, and create another financial bubble.

Plus, in countries where they have implemented cap and trade there has been a very minimal amount of actual affect on the environment. Its just another scheme to make more money for corporations.

[sgreger1]

texasmade,
Yes some of global warming happens because of natural cycles but 6 billion people burning fossil fuels has accelerated it.

Governments have to deal with the consequences, How about New Orleans, do you spend billions more on canals, pumps, dykes? Do you build that multibillion dollar ice cutter for the artic if there is no ice? Do you spend billions building a water pipeline for Las Vegas to deliver water from mountain snowfall runoff that isn't there? How about pest control affecting our food crops? How about the spread of disease under a changing climate?

RRK,
No I haven't. that's human nature though, it happens on both sides. I've seen plenty of lies and deceit from the deniers, it wouldn't surprise me the "other" side is guilty of some of it too. I'm not a big fan of Al Gore but that doesn't change the underlying facts.

When NOAA and NASA change their minds about global warming I'll be happy to follow along. Until then I'll let the professionals handle it. 8)

At least your being fair, because both sides do lie, like always. But my only question is they tried to tie a warming trend to Co2 emissions, yet in recent years CO2 emissions have raised while warming has slowed. So you can no longer draw a corolation between the two. They don't have accurate enough climate models to predict the future yet. In the past they claimed there was global cooling, then they said global warming will destroy us in 50 years, then now they are saying that GW has stopped and will probbaly col for 30 years then resume. They don't have accurate enough predictions for me to trust them enough to impose taxes etc to fix it.

Its just another sell out to corporations like always.

[adm]

Yes. There is climate change.

Yes. Human use of fossils fuels can impact it

Yes. There are other far larger contributors to this change

The only possible conclusion is that while climate change does exist - always has and always will, the current political hysteria is self serving, cynical and purely an excuse to screw the public for more cash and push certain agendas. Some of which are definitely good for the future of humankind, and some of which are far more questionable.

[sgreger1]

Yes. There is climate change.

Yes. Human use of fossils fuels can impact it

Yes. There are other far larger contributors to this change

The only possible conclusion is that while climate change does exist - always has and always will, the current political hysteria is self serving, cynical and purely an excuse to screw the public for more cash and push certain agendas. Some of which are definitely good for the future of humankind, and some of which are far more questionable.

THIS!


Of course there is climate change, of course humans have to play SOME role, but to claim that we are the largest (or even significant) contributor to it, is not fair. The oceans, wildlife, sun etc all have an effect. The lack of consistency in the climatologists predictions and how they seem to always be changing the story does not lend any credence to their claims.


Going green is good, obviousely there is no harm in being more enviro-friendly. But taking a legit green movement and distorting it for political purposes to obtain more gov power and raise taxes... not so much.

[Skimo]

I'd like to state that AL Gore is full of it.

Following that remark, I want solid evidence and a graph covering temperatures over the last millenium.

There's a reason there is no real forcasting, they don't have the data.

I also agree being more eco friendly is better, but no environmentalist can support the use of a computer, unless the end justifies the means.

[tom502]

Manbearpig.

[sgreger1]

Manbearpig.

You sound super cereal.

[tom502]

I am soooooo cereal.

[justintempler]

That 30,000 scientists claim is utter BS.

That 30,000 scientists comes from an online petition that anyone can sign. I can register my whole family including the family dog and we'll all be instant scientists who signed the petition. :roll:

and you thought ACORN registering Daffy Duck to vote was bad. :roll:

That is the reason why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS don't cover the story.

And why Faux News and WingNutDaily do.

[sgreger1]

Global Warming is not killing anyone, this global warming movement is. Governments are scaling back their agriculture production in favor of producing crops for biofuels as part of the green movement. That's food that people could be eating. Going green and spending money on this green thing is going to choke out the lower class. If anything, let the free market handle the green movement, it's already happening in many companies.

[spirit72]

Global Warming is not killing anyone, this global warming movement is. Governments are scaling back their agriculture production in favor of producing crops for biofuels as part of the green movement. That's food that people could be eating. Going green and spending money on this green thing is going to choke out the lower class. If anything, let the free market handle the green movement, it's already happening in many companies.

It isn't so much that they're scaling back production, but that they're diverting more of it to biofuels, as far as corn-based Ethanol is concerned. By the way, ask your local mechanic what he "really" thinks about Ethanol.

The real problem is that crops on the scale we see today are dependent on oil/petroleum-based fertilizers and inputs.

'Green' is all well and good, but it is focused on the wrong things, in my opinion....things like keeping all the cars running, and 'Agribusiness' that is wrecking the land. It should rather be based on scaling back to a much more local level, with the understanding that the depletion of easily accessible oil will occur within the next lifetime or two and will force these changes anyhow.

Things like wind and solar energy, biofuels, hydrogen, etc. are great, but I don't believe any combination of these 'green' energy sources will allow us to operate on the scale and under the scope that we are today. Better to get a head start.