Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steel2Velvet

"You will forget Climategate .. You will forget Climategate .. You will for

Recommended Posts

Tomorrow, the leaders of the world will meet to discuss the global climate. I am betting the name "Marc Sheppard" will not be mentioned - but should. Here is his blog entry of extreme relevance to the discussions that will be taking place in Copenhagen. The initial 90% of this blog is very technical and describes the "how" of Climategate, but the scariest parts are the last 4 paragraphs that outline the "why."

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really tomorrow ;)

The initial 90% of this blog is very technical and describes the "how" of Climategate, but the scariest parts are the last 4 paragraphs that outline the "why."

I just skimmed over the first 90%, but the the last paragraphs didn't impress me at all... in fact they sounded pretty egoistical to me.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really tomorrow ;)

I just skimmed over the first 90%, but the the last paragraphs didn't impress me at all... in fact they sounded pretty egoistical to me.

Reread them. Didn't get the "ego" in the last 4 paragraphs. Perhaps you were referring the comment section, which I didn't finish.

Oh god, media, drop the -gate suffix already, it's lame and derivative and redundant.

OK. But don't let that get in your way of honestly evaluating the content, which affects virtually every productive economy on earth. That would be like someone saying they don't like you because they don't like your shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[This would] force American power consumption to levels equal to those of about 1910, but would also have us pay reparations for an imaginary “climate debt†we’ve accumulated by building the world’s greatest economy of all time. That debt is based on the amount of CO2 our financial growth has purportedly pumped into the atmosphere, which, according to the conclusions of the IPCC and based largely upon reports from the CRU, has selfishly imperiled the planet by inducing climate change.

Of course, asking Americans to pay reparations based on the claim they’ve done harm to other nations by spoiling the climate is like asking me to pay damages to my neighbor based on his claim that he can’t sell his house because my great-grandmother’s ghost is haunting it.

again, either I would have to put up numerous "[citation needed]"s (especially the power consumption to the state of 1910 sounds dubious) - or alternatively read the technical part of the blog AND probably many other books to understand it and get more opinions.

But the problem is that the other countries aren't trying to sell their houses, they're trying to give it to their children and grandchildren to LIVE in them... ask the Maldivians how they think about that.

How about this metaphor: We're all living in a big apartment building, but I don't see why I should help to pay for fire extinguishers for the whole building, just because I helped to put faulty wiring in the whole thing... I mean if a fire starts in some other floor in another apartment, that's not my business, is it?

And if the whole building burns down we'll just build a new one ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) This article is full of the same faulty anti-climate change "logic" that people have been trying to hoist on the public for years. Yes there has been warming before. But no it hasn't been like this, and if the pattern had continued naturally we should not be in a warming period right now. The link between human-caused CO2/CH4 pollution and climate change is undeniable. "Climategate" was based around a few mistakes in the rate of physical change in markers such as glacier retreat and ocean levels. It hardly goes against decades of legitimate research.

2) Okay, let's suppose climate change is one big hoax. How does that change how our policy towards energy use and consumption should shift over the next few years? Cleaner air and water, cheaper fuel, less reliance on oil from countries harboring people that hate the western world, more job opportunities: that's what comprehensive clean energy reform gets us. Look at the Gulf of Mexico tragedy that is going on right now. It has nothing to do with global climate change, but it certainly makes the case that we need to break our oil addiction. Look at Los Angeles. Even if you don't believe human pollution is causing a dangerous shift in climate, all you have do is breathe the air in L.A. and know that human pollution is dangerous. This is a stupid argument.

And yes, I did read the whole article. It does the same thing it accuses the IPCC of doing: picking and choosing which statistics to use without putting them in the correct context. Leave the news thread for news, post propaganda somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

How about this metaphor: We're all living in a big apartment building, but I don't see why I should help to pay for fire extinguishers for the whole building, just because I helped to put faulty wiring in the whole thing... I mean if a fire starts in some other floor in another apartment, that's not my business, is it?

And if the whole building burns down we'll just build a new one ;)

Ah, the Blame Game. Well, everyone knows America always loses that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Blame Game. Well, everyone knows America always loses that one.

Rubbish!

Every industry nation from the US over European countries to China and Japan are/should be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) ...

Leave the news thread for news, post propaganda somewhere else.

Wow. When did scientific debate become propaganda? And all this will be in the news, as of tomorrow, my friend.

I don't know of anyone, if questioned about it, who does not believe that clean air, water and a conservative approach to the environment is a tremendously great concept. What is at risk is the thought of well-being and longlife for millions of school-aged children who are being taught a single theory that, as Al Gore puts it, in 10 years the world's environment will be near irrevocible collapse and soon afterward life as we know it will cease. This fear-mongering has an impact socially, emotionally on a huge scale and is not even based on sound science. I can understand why some would resist the message.

But a softer, less controversial approach to conservation of resources is also acceptable, it would seem to me. And I am one who absolutely abhors waste and pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish!

Every industry nation from the US over European countries to China and Japan are/should be involved.

Absolutely! And not just nations, where people get lost in the mass. It is up to each individual. I still see people using their neighborhoods as a trash can; then turn around and blame the USA for polluting the earth. It would be laughable, if not so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is based on sound science. Mistakes were made, but the overall concept is sound. Other articles on the home page of American Thinker are "More Financial Reform, Less Financial Security", "Planned Parenthood, a Social Disease", "Jihadi Echoes Obama", "Obama's Greatest Deficit Is Wisdom", "Ban The Income Tax" and "Israel's Right To Exist As A Jewish Homeland". This is not a news site, it's an opinion site. It has every right to exist (despite, in my humblest of opinions, being generally morally repugnant). However, when an article from an opinion site - right or left - is presented as news (as you have) it becomes propaganda.

Ron, I generally have the utmost respect for you, but when we get into our little political debates you become condescending. I am not some wide-eyed idealist voting with my emotions, as you seem to think. I am at the very least as informed and rational as you are and I conform my beliefs to the facts, not the other way around. I have been keeping up with this so-called "climategate" investigation, and it is the biggest load of you-know-what I have witnessed in a long time.

As a wise man named Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm no expert, but I do know that the Earth has always had a pattern of warming up, then cooling down. The glaciers melt and then they stop. There have been at least five ice ages in Earth's history.

In my opinion, we're just in one of those transitional stages between ice ages where the ice caps are melting. Scientifically speaking, we've been in an interglacial period ever since the end of the Pleistocene about 11,500 years ago. It just so happens that the last time this happened, we did not have the technology nor the scientific knowledge to notice it. I think we're just noticing it now. Nothing different from the normal cycle of the Earth. In a few thousand years or so (perhaps longer) we'll probably enter another glacial period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, if there is a cycle of so-called ice ages and we are merely in the middle of one...

...then global warming is a GOOD THING!!

It'll prevent the ice age from sneaking up on us again.

It'll prolong the inevitable.

Who knows...maybe we'll never have another ice age ever again.

LET'S HEAR IT FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!!

HIP HIP HOORAY!! HIP HIP HOORAY!!

SCREW YOU, AL GORE, AND THE POLITICALLY CORRECT, BIODEGRADABLE, SAFE-FOR-THE-OZONE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!!

:afro: :afro: :afro: :jester: :jester:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read many anti climate change articles, but I am still yet to see one that is actually written by someone with any experience at all in the field of climate science, or one that actually provides reliable sources for the so-called "facts" provided within. This one is even less believable than most I read - especially because of how it grasps for acceptance with that nonsensical metaphor at the end (or at least it only makes sense if you completely ignore years of research by people who actually understand the subject, unlike this blogger).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Ron, I generally have the utmost respect for you, but when we get into our little political debates you become condescending.

Intonation normally characterized as condescending is absent in written chat. Now, you could read this previous sentence as information, casual notation or the words of a condescending individual. It is the choice of the reader. It was most certainly not my intent in this thread. I would much rather build a bridge than burn one.

I am not some wide-eyed idealist voting with my emotions, as you seem to think. I am at the very least as informed and rational as you are and I conform my beliefs to the facts, not the other way around. ...

I have no doubt that the only separation of our skills in this debate come as a result of my experiences when I was your age. Similar to your present situation, I was then ex-military, a college student. It was 1972 when the scientific community addressed the world with the results of exacting research that indicated, due to carbon emissions produced by mankind, the world was in the imminent throes of global cooling. "The New Ice Age" was on the cover of Time magazine in bold letters, scaring the beejeebers out of anyone who cared to see their 30th birthday. The facts, as presented by a consortium of scientists, were undeniable and the results were catastrophic. I bought in wholly. I picketed where people worked. I villified the manufaturing community as being at fault for the human race dying. It is no wonder I feel a bit skeptical today during this twist of deja vu.

I also fully understand why you feel as strongly as you do. I was once as you are. I even wrote a poem as a very young man about how upset I was at those who ignored the warning signs. That poem is in book that Uncle Joe owns. Again, I believe we should all do as much as possible to keep the earth clean and pristine. I just don't believe we should twist arms, use scare tactics and attempt to impede progress in order to get it done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being skeptical is one thing. Skepticism is healthy. Ignoring piles of empirical evidence is different. Like Chris said, I've yet to see an anti-climate change article written by actual scientists. There is no deep conspiracy amongst the scientific community (of which I'm a part) to take down industry or get revenge on America. We are just telling the public what is happening and what it means. Find me an article written in a reputable scientific journal and not a right-wing blog. Until then, I'm sticking with the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so tired of the back and forth distortions, exaggerations and outright lies by both sides of the man-made-global warming debate. Amidst all the hysteria, why are so few environmental groups focusing on all the horrible toxins we are pumping into our atmosphere (like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide) and the pollutants and plastics with which we are contaminating our oceans, lakes and rivers? All we ever hear about is atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The earth is warming and there will never be scientific certainty about its primary cause. So why don't we start preparing to mitigate the worst effects of this warming trend and devote our scientific and monetary resources to cleaning up our damned environment? Let's try to prevent our rainforests and boreal forests from being burned and clear-cut into oblivion. Let's try to prevent the large numbers of plant and animal species becoming extinct every day. Let's try to keep oil tankers from destroying one of the last pristine marine environments.

For every self-professed expert who states categorically that human activity is primarily responsible for rising carbon dioxide levels, there is another self-professed expert who claims otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well obviously climate change isn't my only environmental concern, I've devoted my University studies to environmental science for more reasons than that. It's just important and shouldn't be ignored. Neither should the things you listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...