Are you following this climatologist email scandal?

[Dans 68]

On a related note...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

Interesting read. 

Dan

[bull]

On a related note...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

Interesting read. 

Dan

Yes, I thought that one rebuttal was especially interesting where someone said that the data from only one tree had thrown off the entire data curve. Another thing I read somewhere (probably couldn't find it now if I tried) said that there are too many factors in play to consider these growth rings as a convicting evidence of anything simply because the soil nutrient levels change from year to year based on erosion and water table fluctuations.

[bakerhillpins]

I just wish both sides would drop their absolute conviction that their side is right so we could actually figure out the truth.  The consequences of being wrong EITHER WAY are too great to let this be decided by O'Reilly vs. Gore.

I'm not seeing that as the case. Most people are ok with the concept of conservation but think it's silly to say humans are killing the planet. To me this sounds like middle ground.

I wonder sometimes, it seems to me most folks are good with conservation, as long as its other people having to conserve or cut back, Not themselves.

[bull]

I just wish both sides would drop their absolute conviction that their side is right so we could actually figure out the truth.  The consequences of being wrong EITHER WAY are too great to let this be decided by O'Reilly vs. Gore.

I'm not seeing that as the case. Most people are ok with the concept of conservation but think it's silly to say humans are killing the planet. To me this sounds like middle ground.

I wonder sometimes, it seems to me most folks are good with conservation, as long as its other people having to conserve or cut back, Not themselves.

You mean like when celebrities give us all daily mini-sermons on how we all need to do our part to save our precious natural resources and then climb into their stretch limos that get 4 mpg to go to the airport where they climb into a 30-passenger private jet so they can fly to Paris to promote some crappy movie?

Like Barbra Streisand who spent $500,000 to back a certain presidential candidate asking that he use it to fight global warming but spends $22,000 a year to water the lawn at her Malibu mansion. And also keeps her 12,000-square-foot backyard barn air conditioned?

Like Al Gore whose 10,000-square foot carbon-neutral mansion used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity? And when he was called out for his hypocrisy the usage actually shot up by 10%?

Like John Travolta who once said, "Everyone can do their bit" to help fight global warming but then flies all over the globe by himself in a Boeing 707 puking out 100 times the carbon emissions of the average Joe?

Is that the kind of stuff you're talking about?

[bakerhillpins]

You mean like when celebrities give us all daily mini-sermons on how we all need to do our part to save our precious natural resources and then climb into their stretch limos that get 4 mpg to go to the airport where they climb into a 30-passenger private jet so they can fly to Paris to promote some crappy movie?

Like Barbra Streisand who spent $500,000 to back a certain presidential candidate asking that he use it to fight global warming but spends $22,000 a year to water the lawn at her Malibu mansion. And also keeps her 12,000-square-foot backyard barn air conditioned?

Like Al Gore whose 10,000-square foot carbon-neutral mansion used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity? And when he was called out for his hypocrisy the usage actually shot up by 10%?

Like John Travolta who once said, "Everyone can do their bit" to help fight global warming but then flies all over the globe by himself in a Boeing 707 puking out 100 times the carbon emissions of the average Joe?

Is that the kind of stuff you're talking about?

Sure, if you simply want to pull from the top of the heap, then run with that. But, frankly, I am talking about folks at ALL levels of society. I suppose its the classic "Not in my backyard" situation. There is no shortage of hypocrites out there.

[bull]

I guess I don't get what you're saying. Most people I know were recycling years before Al Gore told them to. Farmers and loggers have practiced sustainable regrowth and conservation practises for decades so they and their children could keep on farming and logging. Salmon fishers have promoted hatchery production to keep salmon numbers as high as possible. No one I know has ever dumped used oil down the drain.

And I don't see how you can just gloss over the hypocrisies I listed above. I guess when these people actually believe their own tripe it might be cause for concern but as it stands, when individual celebrities continually ring the crisis bell but use more resources than a small town, I don't see a real need for concern. I don't see why 100 average Joes should cut their usage to zero so Travolta can feel good about flying a Boeing 707. Change starts at the top. And furthermore, why change if we're not doing any harm? Are we doing harm? That question has yet to be answered.

[Ghoste]

When the top of the heap are getting worldwide media praise and Nobel Prizes for their leadership in environmental awareness then it's an EXCELLENT place to pull from the heap IMO.  If we want to raise a debate on conservation hypocrites then lets bloody well start with the biggest hypocrites of all.

[bakerhillpins]

And I don't see how you can just gloss over the hypocrisies I listed above. I guess when these people actually believe their own tripe it might be cause for concern but as it stands, when individual celebrities continually ring the crisis bell but use more resources than a small town, I don't see a real need for concern. I don't see why 100 average Joes should cut their usage to zero so Travolta can feel good about flying a Boeing 707. Change starts at the top. And furthermore, why change if we're not doing any harm? Are we doing harm? That question has yet to be answered.

I'm not trying to gloss over them. I guess my point is that its not just them, and we all know about them, its obvious and getting old.

There are tons of folks that expect someone else to solve all the problems. I have met quite a few folks that just don't recycle. Not because the don't believe it might be a good idea but mostly because they are too lazy to put it in the bin next to the "trash". I actually asked them about it and they that's the response I got.

When the top of the heap are getting worldwide media praise and Nobel Prizes for their leadership in environmental awareness then it's an EXCELLENT place to pull from the heap IMO.  If we want to raise a debate on conservation hypocrites then lets bloody well start with the biggest hypocrites of all.

You are correct, I am not going to try to argue that point because I agree with it. But far too often folks use that as an excuse to avoid having a rational discussion about the issues and having to do anything themselves.

[RD]

I just wish both sides would drop their absolute conviction that their side is right so we could actually figure out the truth.  The consequences of being wrong EITHER WAY are too great to let this be decided by O'Reilly vs. Gore.

BUT... we have no idea what those consequences are do we?  We do not know if there are ANY consequences.  We do not know that even if there were consequences if they would be a positive or negative in our lives.  Those who are pushing this global warming / climate change theories are ASSUMING they know what is going to happen, they do not really know.  If they did know... I want to buy their fortune telling crystal ball on ebay.

To help with the high level hypocrites argument, here is a good quote:

"YOU MUST BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD." GHANDI

[mauve66]

and around here they lump all 3 recycled items together in the truck and then have to pay/use energy to get it seperated again later instead of having 3 different compartments in the same truck

[defiance]

I just wish both sides would drop their absolute conviction that their side is right so we could actually figure out the truth.  The consequences of being wrong EITHER WAY are too great to let this be decided by O'Reilly vs. Gore.

BUT... we have no idea what those consequences are do we?  We do not know if there are ANY consequences.  We do not know that even if there were consequences if they would be a positive or negative in our lives.  Those who are pushing this global warming / climate change theories are ASSUMING they know what is going to happen, they do not really know.  If they did know... I want to buy their fortune telling crystal ball on ebay.

To help with the high level hypocrites argument, here is a good quote:

"YOU MUST BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD." GHANDI

That incorrect - we know that there are serious consequences if we choose wrong EITHER WAY.  If we choose to fight global warming and it's wrong, we waste billions of dollars, probably destroying some economies in the process, and maybe even do real damage to the environment.  If we choose to disbelieve it and it's wrong, coastal cities are destroyed, ecosystems are altered, whole speices are destroyed, thousands die...

In either case, if we choose badly the consequences are severe, and yes, we do know that.  


As for knowing what's going to happen needing a crystal ball, when the astronaughts (or was it cosmonaughts?) launched the first manned rocket, it had never been done, but they still knew what was going to happen.    good science and engineering can tell us a lot about the world around us. 

[Ghoste]

They didn't know, they had a pretty good idea of what would happen and that was only because they sent dogs and chimps up first to see if they could survive.  So far, science has yet to duplicate global man made climate change. (except of course by computer modelling and they sure do seem to be having trouble accurately doing that so I would hardly call it anything but a guess at this point)

[RD]

They didn't know, they had a pretty good idea of what would happen and that was only because they sent dogs and chimps up first to see if they could survive.  So far, science has yet to duplicate global man made climate change. (except of course by computer modelling and they sure do seem to be having trouble accurately doing that so I would hardly call it anything but a guess at this point)

specifically if its based upon data that, up until recently, seemed legitimate.  Which leads us to this, how many other scientific climate models are based upon data that was accumulated with bias?  Seems that the whole "trust" concept of science being objective comes into play in regards to such theories that cause a economic, emotional, political, and physical impact on society.

good science and engineering are truly only achievable in this topic if the humans who actually want to make change, had NOTHING to gain from their findings other than the truth.

do not get me wrong, i am not a ANTI-SCIENCE guy at all.  It is just the opposite.  I am just against politically motivated "theories" that are pushed based upon evidence that does not PROVE the theory.  If it did, then would it not be a LAW?

I just cannot believe that those who are supporting this are purporting that the inevitable conclusion is apocalyptic, because that, in itself is a theory because they do not know exactly what will happen even if it does.  No one knows how the Earth will react to this, if it is doing something right now to balance this, or even if it will do anything.  All I hear is if "we" do not do something.  That, in itself, implies that something will happen and the product is something that is known, when it is not.

We hear about CO2 in the atmosphere, and how it is accumulating at higher and higher levels.  I find this difficult to believe due to the fact that the same organisms that use CO2 to produce oxygen have been increasing in number since the "climate change" and that wood was removed as the number one resource to produce heat for homes (boy what a kick in da nutz):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8218000/8218335.stm

number of trees on earth:

http://www.worldchanging.com/local/seattle/archives/009087.html

carbon sequestration:

http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#carbon

# Approximately 800 million tons of carbon are stored in U.S. urban forests with a $22 billion equivalent in control costs. (1)
# Planting trees remains one of the cheapest, most effective means of drawing excess CO2 from the atmosphere. (15)
# A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. (10)
# Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles. [8]
# If every American family planted just one tree, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be reduced by one billion lbs annually. This is almost 5% of the amount that human activity pumps into the atmosphere each year. (17)
# The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.
# Over a 50-year lifetime, a tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion. (2)

those will argue the "amazon"!!! well, no one tends to pay attention where trees are increasing in growth, just where they are decreasing.

[Steve P.]

So,,,, Paper or plastic??    JK...

I just came across this and must admit I am behind on what's going on lately. Been real busy trying to make a house livable. So I'll say this. And this is just my opinion. Take it or leave it....

1) I don't see anything wrong with conservation. Not at all.

2) I care alllllmost as much about what John Travolta says as I do Michael Vick.

3) I went to Los Angeles  for the first time back in 1974. I don't remember a hell of allot from that very long 6 weeks vacation, but I do vividly remember coming into Long Beach. It was thick with smog and hard to breathe. I went back there a few years ago to pick up a 68" Charger hood with VegasMike. Long beach was much better. In fact I didn't think we were as close to the ship yards as we were. What changed was fuels and pollution controls. I can't say that change was a BAD THING.

4) There is a huge difference in what our trucks and cars put out ~v~ power plants. Especially todays power plants. Quick story. I bought a house 6 months ago. It needed to be completely stripped and remodeled. My V-10 gas guzzler has made about 100 trips to Home Depot, Lowes and a variety of other hardware stores and home goods stores. All of the trips I took have added up to some huge numbers in my fuel bills. Now I can't tell you how much it is but I can tell you I wish I had an electric vehicle to make all those 4-8 mile trips. A few of them would have certainly required my big ass truck due to it's carrying capacity, but,,,,,, the other 90+ would have cost me one hell of alllllot less out of my wallet. And at a much lower expense to the environment.

5) "GREENIES" is a bad way to look at a GOOD thing. There is an awful lot of good coming from the GREEN MOVEMENT. People are realizing that if they spend a bit more now they will not only recoup the money and then some, but also they are finding that making these choices is giving them a feel better. For instance: Insulation. People are now building new homes differently than ever before. Now they build with an ENVELOPE of insulation. It's sprayed on expanding foam. From my point of view it is the cats azz.. It not only brings the cost of heating and cooling WAY down, but it keeps your home very comfortable... Total cost in a NEW BUILD is very close to and in some cases cheaper than fiberglass and the foam will pay for itself quickly. This came from THINKING GREEN.. "Those damn GREENIES"...

6) Forget all about left and right. GREED is what drives ALL OF IT... GREED.......................


Now this is just my opinion and it's just like noses and butts, so take it easy on me or I will change your screen name to something sounding very girlie....  

[bakerhillpins]

Sending a dog or chip up wasn't anything more than an experiment based upon theories. Which isn't any different from what they are trying with computer models. The experiment proved that it could be done. Just like the computer models prove that they can model some of the patterns of weather but not all. In either case they still have a lot to learn. If we didn't then getting to Mars wouldn't be anything more than a trivial task.

Proving that something can be done and developing a system to repeatedly perform anything with some shred of accuracy are two very different things. Regardless, just because a model (computer or otherwise) doesn't explain everything observed doesn't mean that the science behind it or the theories that were used are worthless. There are plenty of things that were developed using incomplete understanding of the science behind it.

One thing that drives me nuts are those that believe that just because the models are not spot on and perfect that means they don't tell us anything and don't provide any useful information, and should therefore be ignored. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of science in general. Science is the quest to find answers to things we don't understand and to discover things about our world that we didn't know before. Its fundamentally generates more questions than we answer. (showing how little we actually know)

Yea, the guys that fudged the numbers make it harder for the rest of the folks who are really being objective. But, it doesn't make all climate science wrong. It just means that a bunch of folks let their political feelings interfere with their ability to be objective.

[Ghoste]

But again Steve, I don't think anyone here is actually in support of actively polluting the world.  And I disagree that electric cars are much friendlier to the environment, they just camoflage it better.  They may be some better but not on the order that the "greens"  (if I'm going tobe labelled as a climnate change denier then they are going to be labelled too ) make them out to be.
What is under debate is whether or not humans are altering the global climate and if they are it will mean watching for the four horsemen.
Do cars pollute?  Absolutely.  Should we try to control and eliminate that?  Unquestionably.
The difference here is that based on some bad science we are about to get hosed in the wallet.  So obviously I'm 100% in agreement with you that this is really all about money and trying to hide it under any other title just irks the hell out of me.

[dodgecharger-fan]

If we choose to disbelieve it and it's wrong, coastal cities are destroyed, ecosystems are altered, whole speices are destroyed, thousands die...

If man-made climate change is not a reality, but climate change is, then these things may still happen.
There's really more than two sides to this discussion, then, isn't there?

A. Man is destroying the planet.
B. Man is not destroying the planet.
C. Man is insignificant in terms of the planet's climate and what we do or not do isn't going to make a difference - overall. Mother Earth is going to do what she needs to do - just as she's always done.

B could take on a whole other line of argument, beyond climate change, and I'd likely be onside with some of those points. I don't like pollution. I like a nice place to live and other places to visit where other people live and like it there. I don't think it's right for people to have to live in filth not of their own making. I don't like energy waste. There's a lot of bad things. i just don't think it all adds up to any impact on the climate of the Earth - at least not in any significant way.

Steve P.: Spot on, in my opinion.
If the whole "greenie" movement had come forth with a "do this (by yourself for yourself) and you will save money" strategy, the uptake would have been huge. Actually, that strategy is working to a degree, but it is somewhat overshadowed. You see a lot more information about conserving energy and your wallet in home building. I live in the land of Mike Holmes and he tirelessly lobbies for changes to minimum code to make homes better and more efficient. Spray-in foam insulation is his favourite thing in the world.

[Ghoste]

Sorry but I find an enormous difference between sending a monkey into space on an actual rocket and then seeing if it survived compared to using a computer model to determine that people have altered the weather patterns of the entire planet and that it is going to result in the destruction of the world.  If the dogs and chimps died on the way up would we have still sent men into orbit telling them not to worry, the experiment didn't go as planned but we know for sure the same thing won't happen to you?
When they change the weather patterns on some other planet and document the results then I will accept that as a comparable experiment.
I also have a very difficult time accepting that even if the computer models aren't perfect that the results predicted by them should be taken as such.  I don't say they should be ignored, what I am saying is that if they are unable to provide conclusive evidence then the people who are extracting this data have no right whatsoever to be providing me with conclusive solutions to problems that can't prove exist.
Truly I think the very worst thing to happen to this question was for Al Gore, the hippies, the United Nations and corporate interests to get their hands on it.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that at this juncture I clearly do not believe in man made climate change or its implied threat of looming apocolypse.  I could be wrong or the people who support it could be wrong but rhetoric isn't going to change my position or yours.  Perhaps one day someone will actually be able to prove this theory one way or the other.  But I doubt it.

[bull]

That incorrect - we know that there are serious consequences if we choose wrong EITHER WAY.  If we choose to fight global warming and it's wrong, we waste billions of dollars, probably destroying some economies in the process, and maybe even do real damage to the environment.  If we choose to disbelieve it and it's wrong, coastal cities are destroyed, ecosystems are altered, whole speices are destroyed, thousands die...

In either case, if we choose badly the consequences are severe, and yes, we do know that.  

Right. Act now or we'll all die.

Here's some more "act now or we'll all die" quotes (the first one is about global cooling):

[Dans 68]

Hmmm....   

Dan

[bull]

More. These regarding Y2K:

[defiance]

That incorrect - we know that there are serious consequences if we choose wrong EITHER WAY.  If we choose to fight global warming and it's wrong, we waste billions of dollars, probably destroying some economies in the process, and maybe even do real damage to the environment.  If we choose to disbelieve it and it's wrong, coastal cities are destroyed, ecosystems are altered, whole speices are destroyed, thousands die...

In either case, if we choose badly the consequences are severe, and yes, we do know that. 

Right. Act now or we'll all die.

Here's some more "act now or we'll all die" quotes (the first one is about global cooling):

Trying not to be annoyed here, but perhaps you should try actually reading my post.  It kinda says just the opposite of what you seem to think. 

I think my statements in that post are pretty much indisputable:

1) if the GW theories are wrong and we try to fix it anyway, we waste billions of dollars.

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

If you can read that and the other posts I've made in this thread, and think I'm advocating "act now", there's apparently a comprehension barrier involved somewhere.  My statement throughout this thread has been that following the wrong answer is bad, so we need to stop the political nonsense and get to work finding which answer is right.  That's all.

I don't think I'll respond to those implying that science is unable able to predict anything that will happen; I could provide 10,000 counter-examples, including the entire technological underpinning to your way of life, but it would just be silly - that argument really doesn't deserve further attention.

[bakerhillpins]

Sorry but I find an enormous difference between sending a monkey into space on an actual rocket and then seeing if it survived compared to using a computer model to determine that people have altered the weather patterns of the entire planet and that it is going to result in the destruction of the world.  If the dogs and chimps died on the way up would we have still sent men into orbit telling them not to worry, the experiment didn't go as planned but we know for sure the same thing won't happen to you?

There really isn't any difference other than the fact that one uses computer simulation and one uses an actual physical model. They both are experiments, which used/are using the tools they have at hand in the most effective manner to prove theories.  The animals dying on the way up was just one of a quintillion problems that could have occurred but didn't. Not because they fully understood what was going on but because they felt they had enough of an understanding to deal with all the issues. The experiment was able to prove their theories correct enough to continue with out having to go back and correct their model.

When they change the weather patterns on some other planet and document the results then I will accept that as a comparable experiment.

Its unfortunate that you seem to be willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. All experiments are "Successful" in that we learn something from them all, regardless of the fact that it supports ones position or not.

I also have a very difficult time accepting that even if the computer models aren't perfect that the results predicted by them should be taken as such.  I don't say they should be ignored, what I am saying is that if they are unable to provide conclusive evidence then the people who are extracting this data have no right whatsoever to be providing me with conclusive solutions to problems that can't prove exist.

It would seem that you are falling victim to the political tactics of one side over the other. Advocating that its all or nothing. It seems like the other side's POV, that the world will end as a result, is what you don't agree with.

Truly I think the very worst thing to happen to this question was for Al Gore, the hippies, the United Nations and corporate interests to get their hands on it.

Yes, It would seem that way.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that at this juncture I clearly do not believe in man made climate change or its implied threat of looming apocolypse.  I could be wrong or the people who support it could be wrong but rhetoric isn't going to change my position or yours.  Perhaps one day someone will actually be able to prove this theory one way or the other.  But I doubt it.

I guess this is the point I am trying to make. Why is it that we have to cease having a discussion on the topic? (changes in climate) Why can't we talk about what we do know and don't and try to make decisions that are reasonable. Its unfortunate that you consider a discussion about changes in our environment rhetoric. That's the problem with this topic, the few have per versed the debate into a yes or no argument. Its not about that at all. Its about objectively looking at what we know and don't and making informed decisions. And MOST importantly understanding that our decisions today may be based upon flawed knowledge and we will need to change course if, or more likely when, that new understanding occurs.

For the record, I don't believe all the doomsday nonsense either.   There was the whole Y2K pile, and now the new festering 2012 doomsday pile.   We in general seem to share the same view about how we should handle ourselves, I just wonder what is causing the changes I see. Couple that to a basic principle of science, that every action as an equal and opposite reaction, and I can't believe that we don't have something to do with it. The question that is being subverted by politics is what is our contribution.

[bakerhillpins]

1) if the GW theories are wrong and we try to fix it anyway, we waste billions of dollars.

2) if GW theories are right, and we ignore them, the whole sea rising/cities falling/etc. thing happens.  Since that's a component of those theories, it's kinda by definition true if the theories are right.

If one of those conditional statements is false, please let me know which, and why.

If you can read that and the other posts I've made in this thread, and think I'm advocating "act now", there's apparently a comprehension barrier involved somewhere.  My statement throughout this thread has been that following the wrong answer is bad, so we need to stop the political nonsense and get to work finding which answer is right.  That's all.

I don't think I'll respond to those implying that science is unable able to predict anything that will happen; I could provide 10,000 counter-examples, including the entire technological underpinning to your way of life, but it would just be silly - that argument really doesn't deserve further attention.

   Most definitely with the last one!!! 

[Mike DC]

  
I think there is some decisionmaking psychology that bears thinking about with this issue:  



Q.  If your wife gives birth to 3 girls in her first three pregnancies, then what are the odds going into her 4th pregnancy?

A.  If you said "25% girl, 75% boy" you were wrong.  It's still 50/50 each time no matter what happened previously.  

Guessing 25/75% is what FEELS right, but that's still not what IS right.  If it's a coin-flip each time then it's still a coin-flip each time no matter how counter-intuitive that might feel in your gut reaction.




I am applying this to GW in the sense that if we can't predict the present using past data, then we can't predict the future using present data.  

No matter how right it FEELS to decide that it's safer to assume our current patterns will lead to disaster, that does nothing to increase the odds one little bit.  We don't know either way = we don't know either way.  We still don't know if the earth's natural climate shifts will be sending us towards a new ice-age in the next few hundred years.  That could render all this anti-GW efforts to be counter-productive.