We’ve been told for soooo long that global warming is ONLY about the science, that the scientists of record were ethical and far above the politics.
This is what passes for the result of consensus? Bullshit. This is why consensus has no place in a scientific community.
****************************************
WSJ NOVEMBER 23, 2009 Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming
By KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."
In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.
Why the cheap shot at Al Gore?
There are unethical people in every profession. Why would it be any different in the scientific world? The point is that MOST scientists are ethical, again just like any other profession (well, other than politics - lol).
Unless I missed it, the article doesn't really tell us how many people were involved in these 1000 emails... it's possible that they could have been a year's worth of messages between three or four people, or even less. I know that I send and receive well over 1000 emails in a year.
But the point is, as is clearly stated in the article, that the VAST majority of the scientific community believe that global warming exists and that man is the cause; it's only a very small but vocal MINORITY who refute these claims.
And things are getting worse since the Kyoto accord in '97. From an AP article dated yesterday, "In 1997, global warming was an issue for climate scientists, environmentalists and policy wonks. Now biologists, lawyers, economists, engineers, insurance analysts, risk managers, disaster professionals, commodity traders, nutritionists, ethicists and even psychologists are working on global warming."
Apparently, many corporations, including insurance companies, are taking global warming seriously enough to have their actuaries working on it, and commodity traders are taking it into account to help them decide whether or not to try to corner the market on frozen orange juice...
Read the linked article and tell me how you can't believe in man-induced climate change.
They are all after the money that can be made on global warming. Lawyers, commodity traders, nutrionists, economists, ethicists...... and now psychologists? What are they gonna do, treat people for anxiety and depression brought on by global warming fears?
I'm very skeptical about the whole concept. How can scientists tell the difference between man made carbon dioxide, as opposed to nature made carbon dioxide? Last NASA article I read stated that CO2 comprised 0.41 of one percent of the atmospheric gasses. Less than one half of one percent. I'd be very interested to know how they can measure the ocean level increase on that small a rise. Do you know? I would imagine it is difficult to measure the volume of a dynamic liquid, especially something as large as the world's oceans.
Biggest problem I have with global warming is how can they say what will happen 10 years from now, when they can't even give an accurate weather forecast for next weekend.
Why Al Gore? Because he deserves it. Because he’s a No Bell Laureate politician pretending to be a scientist, spreading false information and junk science and then unwilling to even discuss the facts when challenged. He’s represents the epitome of these scientists outlined in the exposed emails. I guess you didn’t catch Gore last week when he declared that the temperature of the Earth’s core was several MILLIONS of degrees, LOL.
I’m not sure why I continue to point out errors you make since you hardly ever acknowledge the fact. But it was wasn’t 3 or 4 scientists as you speculated. The article specifically stated that DOZENS of scientists were involved in the emails. Your assertion that the article stated that “the VAST majority of the scientific community believe that global warming exists and that man is the cause” is false. What it said was “Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause.”
You changed “most” to “vast majority.” You changed “argue” to “believe.” You then implied that that same quantity comprising “most” also “believe” man is the cause, when in fact it’s stated that it is a SUBSET of that majority that simply think it is “likely” that man is a prime or significant cause. You may consider the differentiation modest but it is an excellent example of the “fact creep” that goes on.
For the moment let’s all agree that it’s all true about global warming. Here’s a challenge for you. Find any study that shows with even a modicum of confidence that if Kyoto and Copenhagen are put into full effect that it will solve the problem or even make a reasonable dent. Then tell me how much it will actually cost to “fix” the problem.
This article stated that "most" scientists feel that global warming is real, but I've posted links to articles that state the the "vast" majority agree.
You're arguing semantics... "most", "vast"... the FACT is that EVERY major branch of science who's commented on global warming has stated that it's real. There is NO opposing report from ANY recognized and published university or science organization who refutes it. To me, that constitutes a "vast" majority.
As for you challange, here's one for you... find me a study that shows with even a modicum of confidence that the apocolypse will NOT occur as predicted by the Mayan calendar that the world will NOT end in 2012.
Your challange is spurious; you can't predict the future results of the application of any policy because you can't predict how the participants of the Kyoto accords will put it into affect, how quickly, and how climate changes will continue to occur. You can predict TRENDS, but you cannnot predict specifics.
Let me ask you a question... let's say climate change is real and finally accepted as such by every major industialized nation. Let's further state that they all do the right thing and enact measures to slow or stop it. Just how does that affect you financially? How much will these new policies cost you out of your pocket? How will it affect your quality of life?
You only try to refute a minority of challenges to your assertions, totally ignore others and then twist the remaining ones until it does not even resemble what I said.
1) You only discussed the issue of "vast" vs. "most". That must have been a strain. What about 3 or 4 vs DOZENS? Ignored that one eh?
2) I didn't suggest analyzing the Kyoto/Copenhagen "as finally implemented" I said as "put into full effect." That means 100% implementation.
3) Are you implying that you and I won't be affected? Absurd. The portion of just the proposed Cap and Tax bill that Congress will admit to, will cost me thousands, every year. Are you prepared to quit eating meat and wiping your ass with a washable rag or your empty hand?
OK, I was wrong... it was dozens of scientists, not 3 or 4. Out of HOW many? Do you really think this is the "smoking gun", like many conservatives are calling it? Talk about desperation...
And forgive my ignorance... I'm not totally behind Cap and Tax, but explain to me just how it's is going to cost you THOUSANDS of dollars per year?
Remember that this research unit is only 1 of 4 that keeps official IPCC records. If so many a one facility are doing this (and remember that these were emails exchanged with several other facilities.) It makes more sense that others are doing this than not.
Only this one facility was hacked. We don’t know anything about the others, one way or another.
The thing to watch is how these guys are treated by the rest of the scientific community and what kind of investigation there is (or isn’t). The MSM is already helping out by refusing to cover it, period. The NYT actually said they wouldn’t cover it because the emails were obtained illegally!!! What garbage. Illegal obtainment didn’t stop them when it was all about revealing national security spying secrets.
Cap and Tax and other programs not going to cost much. Listen to the horse’s mouth.
But it doesn't answer either of the two question I asked you. One, do you REALLY believe this is the "smoking gun" that the right is claiming it is?
And the second question: How is cap and trade going to cost YOU "thousands of dollars" a year, as you stated?
I don't know about you, maybe you live in an 40,000 square foot mansion... but the AVERAGE monthly electric bill for an American home, as of Sept. of this year, is around $80/month... Doing the math, that's $960/year. So even if cap and trade DOUBLED the cost of electric, (which is highly, HIGHLY unlikely), the increase in your electric bill would be under $1K, hardly THOUSDANDS of dollars... as a matter of fact, not even ONE thousand... Not quite the figure you randomly threw out there.
Surely, since you MUST be rich (considering the way you support all of the conservative policies that made the rich richer and the middle class disappear), with the tax breaks Reagan and Bush gave you, you can afford a measly $960 to help the environment?
-- Modified on 11/26/2009 6:26:35 PM
what it could be.
I already stated that the most important thing to ask is whether or not it was all a hoax. I think we can safely say now that it was not. So that leaves the next most important question. How wide spread is this? Do I think it’s THE smoking gun? I’m not sure what singularity of gun to which you refer. I can only assume that you are referring to evidence that proves that all global warming science is fake. Well that’s a straw dog argument. No one reasonable would be believe that. I’m sure there are plenty of scientists with perfectly good scruples or principles. You should ask yourself why it’s so important that this situation be ignored or swept under the rug by not just yourself but the MSM as well. The real question is will the scientific community try to ignore it as well. There’s no place in science for people like this. Everyone should be clamoring to find out how wide spread this is. As far as evidence against global warming goes, if global warming is so settled, so positively proven, so far beyond a reasonable doubt, then why do you suppose so many (yes dozens) “so called” scientists felt it necessary to fake their results? If this guys are so brazen about it, don’t you think it’s even a little bit likely that others are following suit. Lastly I never said the video of Obama played any part whatsoever in the evidence of the falsification of evidence. You originally asked how attempts to curb global warming will affect my life, That’s where the Obama video comes in. It’s got nothing to do with the email whistle blowing. Look, cap and tax is just one aspect of expenditures. The government’s goal is to dramatically reduce CO2. Skyrocketing electric costs is just a small piece of the pie. Anything that produces CO2 is going to get more expensive. That means higher costs (skyrocketing costs) for not just electricity but also fuel. That means higher costs for transportation. The mean higher costs for any produce transported whether it be food or wide screen TV (which by the way are on there way to being banned). The CBO’s own figures published indicate the present C&T bill means $1600/yearr directly to every household. But like the healthcare bill the real costs are back loaded. And that doesn’t even make a tiny dent in the international treaty requirements for CO2 reductions let alone the international transfer payments to third world countries of more billions. The whole world is talking about it costing trillions to just slow down global warming. Let’s see trillions divided by 6 billion people still equals THOUSANDS per person. And don’t think they’re gonna expect me to ante up just a tad more than the guy in Bangledesh? If you want to cut CO2 dramatically, everybody needs to quit burning fossil fuels for electricity or travel or just plain MAKING STUFF. So to your question. . . That’s either gonna affect my life a lot or cost me a lot of money. I’m betting BOTH.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/cbo-grossly-underestimates-costs-of-cap-and-trade/
that the Himalayan glaciers are melting faster than any where in the world, despite the UN report predicting they could be gone by 2035. Some Indian scientists even say the glaciers are melting slower than in the past.
You pretty much have to go with what the majority says but it does seem that within this group there are exaggerators and bad science applicators who have a vested interest in shading the facts pro global warning to secure a steady stream of research grants.
And you can believe that it is happening without believing that it is happening as fast as the majority says and without believing that the various cures proposed are cost effective or effective at all.