Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[westwall]

Pretty apparent you position from the wording of the questions in the poll.

My opinion does not count. What counts is that you claim to be an environmentalist, yet take a position that the scientists that have been trying to warn us concerning what is happening in our environment are liars and frauds.

You talking about the same clowns who foisted off MTBE on the citizens of CA in a poorly thought out method of cleaning the air? AFTER we had warned them of it's obvious environmental issues? Now billions of dollars of environmental damage later and the poisoning of thousands of water wells we are proven to be correct and as usual you were WRONG!

 

[westwall]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

Ya just cant prove it.

But we can prove some involved have been less then honest.

In fact had this group of people not been so deceptive, much of the opposition simply would not have been there.

You have nothing in you emails relating to actual studies and their merits. Nothing that would indicate ANY of the studies are false

You failed miserably with Climategate 1...... This is just more of the same

Actually CLIMATEGATE was a release from INSIDE the CRU. We didn't do any of it and as far as it being a failure I guess you havn't noticed the failure of almost every carbon trading scheme in the WORLD after CLIMATEGATE? Australia is the ONLY country that has passed a carbon control scam since CLIMATEGATE and the politicians who forced it through are all heavily invested in the scam. They are all going to be voted out next election cycle and the program eliminated.

 

[daveman]

Foxyre, you are a liar. Anyone that understands anything at all about the environment has seen what has been happening in a warming world. Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

The burning of fossil fuels is one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of pollution in our environment. From the poisoning of the land and rivers from the mountaintop removal of coal mining, the the lead and mercury in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Add the poisoning of rivers by flyash. And you fellows fought tooth and nail to allow the generation plants to continue to pour sulphates and sulfides into the air, poisoning our lakes and killing our forests. Acid rain was and is a problem.

The environment is changing to rapidly for many species of plants and animals to adapt. From the changing temperatures that create environments that favor insect pests over forests, to the acidification of the ocean. These are the effects of putting 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere. To state that you cannot see the results and that you are an environmentalists is like the Nazis that claimed to have Jewish freinds.

Pure emotionalism. That's all you've got.

Sorry, assuaging your butthurt is not sufficient justification for destroying the economies of the Western world.

 

[westwall]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

Only in your tiny little mind, the rest of the world realised what they meant and have acted accordingly with the exception of the Aussies, and those pols will be out next election, they just wanted to loot as much money from their countrymen as possibe before they get voted out.

 

[Si modo]

Maybe Penn State is in a better position now to spank another of their bad boys, at least this time?

 

[Oddball]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

Ya just cant prove it.

But we can prove some involved have been less then honest.

In fact had this group of people not been so deceptive, much of the opposition simply would not have been there.

You have nothing in you emails relating to actual studies and their merits. Nothing that would indicate ANY of the studies are false

You failed miserably with Climategate 1...... This is just more of the same

Wrong.

Not only do they have the e-mails but they also have the original fudged computer codes, along with running commentary from the fudgers.

The only thing that's failing here is the cover-up of the malfeasance of the warmists.

 

[Dr.House]

Ya just cant prove it.

But we can prove some involved have been less then honest.

In fact had this group of people not been so deceptive, much of the opposition simply would not have been there.

You have nothing in you emails relating to actual studies and their merits. Nothing that would indicate ANY of the studies are false

You failed miserably with Climategate 1...... This is just more of the same

Wrong.

Not only do they have the e-mails but they also have the original fudged computer codes, along with running commentary from the fudgers.

The only thing that's failing here is the cover-up of the malfeasance of the warmists.

The Church of Gore holds on to it's failed religion with all it's might...

The extremists are ones to watch out for... Radical Gorism should be watched closely...

 

[daveman]

You have nothing in you emails relating to actual studies and their merits. Nothing that would indicate ANY of the studies are false

You failed miserably with Climategate 1...... This is just more of the same

Wrong.

Not only do they have the e-mails but they also have the original fudged computer codes, along with running commentary from the fudgers.

The only thing that's failing here is the cover-up of the malfeasance of the warmists.

The Church of Gore holds on to it's failed religion with all it's might...

The extremists are ones to watch out for... Radical Gorism should be watched closely...

The Goracle is displeased with your heresy, and will rain down fire upon you!

 

[Sky Dancer]

At the very least, we should be able to look around us and see the effects of smog in our cities. This is man made.

 

[Foxfyre]

And here we have illustration of the common sense problem. A few of our friends so desperately WANT to believe that humankind is on its way to warming the planet to disastrous heights, that they believe ANYTHING anything that points to that and they believe ANYBODY who will say it. So, they claim the e-mails are useless and bogus and signify nothing important and do not even question those who ADMIT in those e-mails that their organization is engaging in or incorporating what is likely bogus research. No common sense to be seen in that argument.

As for the integrity problem, it is easy to see that rather than look more closely at those involved in what is likely bogus research, they accuse ME of a biased poll; blame talk radio for manufacturing the skeptics entire position, and/or accuse people of intentionally destroying the planet?

I am thinking of one of our local scientists that I have gone to for scientific opinion now and then when I needed it in my work. He is not a climate scientist perse, but has looked at a lot of data to see what may have affected his own earth sciences disciplines. He states that from a purely scientific viewpoint, his opinion that the weight of scientific evidence at this time favors the skeptics. I look at his amazing collection of classical LP records and the stereo equipped turn table he plays them on and his shelves full of classical and scientific literature. Somehow I believe he has never listened to a talk radio program in his life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

That is two statements, not one. The first is true. The second involves the residence time of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the tipping points of such things as the permafrost and Artic Clathrates.

We cannot fix what we do not yet understand. We know the residence time of CO2 is in centuries, but do not yet understand enough of how the initial amount effects the length, a few centuries, or many, of time involved. As for the rest, we simply don't know where we are on those items, period. We may be already past the tipping points, we may be centuries from them, or not be a problem at all if we reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere in a reasonable time. Given that we don't know yet what constitutes a reasonable time.

Kind of like running down a road in a dense fog at full speed, knowing full well that there is a bridge out over a deep canyon somewhere down the road, but since we don't know how far, it is OK just to keep the pedal to the metal.

Okay, you finally entered the debate instead of preaching to the choir of religionists. Kudos for that!

You are right that we cannot fix what we do not yet understand. But your bridge analogy is flawed because of the implication that disaster WILL be the result if we continue through the fog and attempt to cross the bridge. A better analogy is we don't know whether the bridge is out.

So our decision is this. Do we reroute and add unacceptable consequences? Or do we proceed cautiously on the theory that there will be sufficient warning to stop if that should be necessary? Your solution seems to be to send out all the trucks to repair the bridge without knowing whether it needs repairs.

Right now the warmers are demanding that we reroute without knowing. They are pushing strongly to turn over the USA's soverignty in this matter for other countries to dictate to us when such countries most likely do not have our best interests at heart. If that was not so, would they not be imposing their demands on places like China and India and other major CO2 "polluters"? Here again is the common sense issue. What good does it do to control countries that are already doing a decent job with emissions and ignore those who are not?

And in the issue of integrity, how many of our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are we expected to give up to the great god of anthropogenic global warming? Most especially when the scientists cannot show any positive results from this? When at least some of the scientific community is feeding to the global authorities what is likely to be bogus science and it is being incorporated into the Policy Summaries?

Common sense AND integrity suggest that of course we keep monitoring and tracking climate trends and learning as much as we can. But it is utter folly to demand fixes for what may not be broken. Let's be sure it is broken before we take away those freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities from all of us and consign whole populations to even more generations of crushing poverty.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks believes the ends justifies the means even though he doesnt know what the ends are. he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any possibility that his version of the predictions for the future may be wrong.

 

[Meister]

And yet you advocating holding the pedal to the metal. That is hardly an wise position.

Code, you are an advocate for the energy corperations, and advocate continueing to add GHGs to the atmosphere no matter what the consequences.

Code...rockhead is a communist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

65 degrees today in NY, must be global warming, but can't be the same supercharged global warming that gave us that freak snow storm in October. The only explanation is that Global Warming mutated.

 

[daveman]

65 degrees today in NY, must be global warming, but can't be the same supercharged global warming that gave us that freak snow storm in October. The only explanation is that Global Warming mutated.

It's because you haven't had this year's global warming shot.

 

[Dr.House]

65 degrees today in NY, must be global warming, but can't be the same supercharged global warming that gave us that freak snow storm in October. The only explanation is that Global Warming mutated.

It's because you haven't had this year's global warming shot.

Is it effective against this year's strain of global warming?

 

[daveman]

65 degrees today in NY, must be global warming, but can't be the same supercharged global warming that gave us that freak snow storm in October. The only explanation is that Global Warming mutated.

It's because you haven't had this year's global warming shot.

Is it effective against this year's strain of global warming?

No. That's why we have this global warming epidem...


...sorry. Got interrupted by a polar bear floating by in that glacial melt water in my front yard.

 

[Meister]

It's because you haven't had this year's global warming shot.

Is it effective against this year's strain of global warming?

No. That's why we have this global warming epidem...


...sorry. Got interrupted by a polar bear floating by in that glacial melt water in my front yard.

Yeah, that polar bear went floating by here a couple of days ago. I threw him a mackeral.

 

[daveman]

Is it effective against this year's strain of global warming?

No. That's why we have this global warming epidem...


...sorry. Got interrupted by a polar bear floating by in that glacial melt water in my front yard.

Yeah, that polar bear went floating by here a couple of days ago. I threw him a mackeral.

Cool. He liked the leftover turkey I tossed him.

 

[newpolitics]

Even if certain or a small group of scientists are being 'scandalous' for whatever reason, that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, and isn't being caused by humans. This article and the possible facts it points to, in terms of objective reality and why our earth is warming does, not mean anything. It is just another excuse for certain people to continue their personal consumption patterns without personal accountability to a larger whole, a nice paradox when the republican ideal of 'personal responsibility' seems to be so strong. It is easy to espouse 'personal responsibility' when you don't accept any for our Earth dying.