Leaked E-Mails Lead to ClimateGate 2.0 Scandal

Tags: ClimateGate, global warming

• parker
  8:10 am on November 23rd, 2011 1

  I love the blog. There’s a lot of very positive and insightful information about Korea here. And although I have no military experience I also find that aspect very enlightening. I especially like the Korea finder (though I’ve never even come close to getting any of them despite my 7+ years here.

  I have to say though, certain posts turn me off. Post on the environment, “Climategate”, and how celebrities and the liberal media have some sort of anti-American motive really don’t seem to belong here.

  I wouldn’t say that I’m an activist or that your opinion is invalid. Obviously I’m just a commenter and you’re free to discuss anything you like but posts like these really just seem to take away from all the good things you’re doing here.

• ChickenHead
  9:09 am on November 23rd, 2011 2

  Parker,

  Thank you for your comment.

  I can understand that GI Korea’s climate-related posts don’t exactly seem to fit with the more common topics of Korea or the military.

  On the other hand, those pushing climate change-justified restrictions in lifestyle, industry, and government can potentially affect the United States military, Korea, and everyone who comes to this blog.

  In fact, it is their stated intention to do so.

  For this reason, it can be considered a borderline-valid topic.

  Besides, like a few other non-related topics, it never fails to generate heated conversation… where repeated posts about the evils of North Korea generate nothing but head-nodding… which makes for an informative post, but a dull comment section.

  Parker, if you are turned off because you support the message of Global Warming and feel it is unfairly being criticized, feel free to express your ideas on the issue. Clearly state your reasons for supporting it and clearly state why the criticism is wrong.

  Some will support you and others will do their best to tear you apart.

  In response to your comment…

  Keep in mind that many of the people here are working very hard at meaningful and practical jobs which require concrete real-world results… some for less pay than they deserve. For this reason, there is little respect for multimillionaire celebrities living multimillionaire celebrity lives while telling the “little people” how to live. There is less respect when the media goes beyond reporting this attitude and starts promoting it.

• Chris Hiler
  10:49 am on November 23rd, 2011 3

  ChickenHead, It really bothers me how, so often in the media, because a person is a celebrity their opinion about other matters is considered to be important.I do believe in grass roots politicking and activism but I’m bothered by the level of importance, or validation, allocated to those who simply enjoy fame.

• Lemmy
  11:45 am on November 23rd, 2011 4

  So

  1. The scientist are idiots for researching and then claiming global warming

  2. The scientist are idiots for saying global warming is just a big hoax.

  What is it? are they idiots for their claim or idiots for claiming its a hoax?

• Joe
  12:39 pm on November 23rd, 2011 5

  I’m not sure whether to agree or disagree with ChickenHead’s point about having such posts on this site. I personally follow a number of dedicated science/technology sites, so any posting here is simply redundant.

  Here’s the Slashdot thread, for example. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/22/2030208/new-batch-of-leaked-climate-emails

• adhaglin
  5:50 pm on November 23rd, 2011 6

  i’ve really got to side with parker on this one and here’s why:

  there are a lot of things the contributors to this blog are qualified to comment on, and they generally do so with welcome insight and a fair and even-handed approach to the subject matter. people tune in because the commentary is grounded in experience and understanding of the events and issues being discussed.

  and then there’s the climate / climatology. let’s be clear. i, myself, am not a licensed or qualified climatologist. i cannot definitively state whether or not global warming is a hoax. which basically puts me in the same boat as everyone else here. so when a person or persons rails one way or the other on a highly politicized topic like this, it then inevitably leads to questions of what the agenda, and in turn, the credibility of those pushing it, is.

  like parker, i’m generally a fan of the blog. it’s been around forever and it’s quite obvious that you guys (most of the time) know what you’re talking about and treat each issue fairly. where that remains true, i’ll continue to pay attention.

• Teadrinker
  9:41 pm on November 23rd, 2011 7

  Imagine that, scientists disagreeing with one another, sometimes over petty arguments…You’ve never done any research if you think these emails consist a smoking gun.

• scott
  10:26 pm on November 23rd, 2011 8

  And these were the worst? I guess if you are set on disbelieving, then this looks good. But if you’re trying to convince us that there is a global conspiracy (even researchers in China, a country which has a vested economic interest in keeping all those coal plants running at full steam, would have to be in cahoots), it’s a bit lame.

  Anyway, how convenient for these ‘conspirators’ that global temperatures keep on rising. Really, how lucky can they get?

• scott
  10:37 pm on November 23rd, 2011 9

  Oh, and GI Korea, did I miss your post about Richard Muller, the once prominent skeptic of climate change, and his reversal after going over the data himself? It’s pretty big news on the topic, so why would you exclude that?
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/koch-funded-study-changes-prominent-global-warming-skeptic-to-a-believer/

  Your posts on areas within your expertise are great, and hard to come by elsewhere. But on climate change, it feels more like a propaganda site with interest in only showing one side of the issue.

• Teadrinker
  11:03 pm on November 23rd, 2011 10

  #9,

  Ouch…

• ChickenHead
  11:05 pm on November 23rd, 2011 11

  adhaglin,

  “i cannot definitively state whether or not global warming is a hoax”

  But you can… if you will put away the emotion and hype and look at the facts.

  From politicians to actors to scientists to royality to musicians to professional shills, the people pushing the looming disaster of Global Warming DO NOT LIVE THEIR LIVES LIKE THEY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING.

  This is not just the case with some of them… it seems to be the case with ALL of them. It seems amazingly absolute.

  This should get any reasonable person’s full attention.

  Many people here have training and experience with leading and understanding people. Some have law enforcement or counter-intel training where it is of great importance to understand true thinking and motivations based on situations and actions rather than self-reported attitudes.

  Many people here have a great deal of professional experience dealing with this… as well as a great deal of life experience in general.

  If a suspected criminal or a possible spy or a captured enemy or a troublesome soldier or a questionable spouse had this large of gap between their claimed beliefs and their actions, many here have the training and experiece to recognize this and reason out their true motivations and intentions in the context of the actual situation. Even the dummy on the street should suspect something is up when the speaking differs so greatly from the actions.

  Examples of this ability are constantly demonstrated here as commenters read incomplete or incorrect news stories yet still manage to correctly reason out the omitted and misrepresented facts long before the Real Story comes out.

  So. Regardless of “not being climate scientists”, which, interestingly, most Global Warming peddlers AND most “climate scientists” are not either, many posters here are VERY qualified to look at a situation and reason out the truth.

  Those not “qualified” to do so can as well.

  Nobody pushing Global Warming has even tried to defend this situation.

  We can debate the more complicated and more-speculated-than-understood science once this situation, easily understandable to all, is resolved.

• kushibo
  3:34 am on November 24th, 2011 12

  Critics of climate change “consensus”…

• Teadrinker
  4:08 am on November 24th, 2011 13

  #11,

  That’s all fine and dandy, but you need to click on the links at #9 and #12.

• ChickenHead
  6:55 am on November 24th, 2011 14

  Teadrinker, Kushibo, Glans, et al.,

  Instead of snidely talking around it, why don’t you all address the fundamental question.

  Regardless if the warming trend is manufactured or established, the people pushing Global Warming do not believe it is anything to be alarmed about. Their behavior in NO WAY reflects even the slightest concern.

  Why should anyone else be worried about it?

  Answer the question or stop pushing your religion on others.

• Teadrinker
  8:00 am on November 24th, 2011 15

  #14,

  The fundamental question is: Does Chickenhead suffer from cognitive dissonance? All evidence suggests that he does.

• ChickenHead
  8:54 am on November 24th, 2011 16

  Once again, you have avoided a legitimate question and replied with a snide remark as if attempted cleverness will make the question go away.

  If you can simply answer my question in a reasonable way, you will go a long way toward convincing me that you are correct and I am wrong.

  I am not against Global Warming Alarmism for any ideological, political, or financial gain.

  I am against it because nothing adds up… and the biggest supporters of it go out of their way not to add it up for me… and ridicule me for asking why it doesn’t add up.

  These are the actions of people pushing swampland in Florida… not the actions of people speaking the truth.

  This pattern is blindingly clear to anybody with any life experience.

  Are you absolutely certain you are holding that cognitive dissonance comment by the correct end?

• kushibo
  10:00 am on November 24th, 2011 17

  ChickenHead, your argument about these supporters, setting aside that it’s based on your own self-serving interpretation of those celebrities “NOT LIVING THEIR LIVES LIKE THEY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING,” is little more than an ad hominem argument.

  It does not change the veracity or lack of veracity one iota if someone whose rich to begin with fails to strip away the trappings of wealth and celebrity to your liking but tries to use their celebrity to bring awareness of an issue to the general public. That demonstrates a possible moral failure on their part but not a factual error regarding the data.

  Now the issue in the link I provided, on the other hand, has some meat to it. It certainly was not meant as “snide.”

• Denny
  11:13 am on November 24th, 2011 18

  Global warming research is big business. Universities, some of which are government funded, give money to these “scientists” for conducting research with manipulated data. If the results conclude global warming, then the university gains more attention and prestige in the “scientific” community. Then, they give more money to the “scientists” to conduct more research. If the result is not what the university is the looking for, then it does not continue funding the “scientists.”

• Tom Langley
  7:28 pm on November 24th, 2011 19

  The reference in the leaked e-mails to “the cause” tell me all that I need to know. If it is a back & forth on climate research then I doubt that they would refer to it as “the cause”. The cause that they are referring to is the blind acceptance on their part that AGW is simply a fact with no contrary opinions allowed. Chickenheads point is that if the climate doom & gloomers were as really concerned about AGW as they claim to be then they (Al Gore is the most famous example) wouldn’t be flying around in private jets or living in huge mansions. I have nothing against mansions or private jets but I’m not claiming that Alaska will be the new Florida in 100 years either.

• Teadrinker
  3:57 am on November 25th, 2011 20

  #19,

  Ever heard of protection motivation theory? Threat appraisal is not only based on the perceived severity of a situation but the individual’s vulnerability to it. If you have enough money, global warming won’t affect you one bit.

• GI Korea
  6:53 am on November 25th, 2011 21

  Let me address the typical misinformation being put out by the alarmists. First of all @9, Professor Muller was never a skeptic he is a AGW believer, that is what made the fact that he rejected Mann’s hockey stick so significant. Muller clearly showed that these scientists selectively used data to create the hockey stick graph. Muller’s graph with the raw data shows that the globe has still warmed but not the dramatic hockey stick. As far as funding from the Koch Foundation I find it interesting you are not concerned about all the funding given to the AGW clergy from people and organizations set to profit from the carbon exchange. The Koch Foundation is actually giving funding to a guy, Professor Muller who appears to be trying to do some honest science. Of course his latest report the AGW alarmists manipulated to push their agenda while ignoring the aspects of the report that didn’t fit their agenda:

  Their hearts filled with bubbling joy and their brains befuddled, none of the warmistas have apparently listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Muller. He emphasizes that the analysis is based only on land data, covering less than 30% of the earth’s surface and housing recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe. In addition, he admits that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is probably worse. He disclaims to know the cause of the warming found by BEST and favors naturally caused oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system that no climate model has yet simulated or explained…….

  BEST has no data from the oceans, which cover 71% of the planet’s surface. True, oceans are not subject to urban heat islands, but they have problems with instrumentation. It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 is simply an artifact — the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming. Anyway, supporting data don’t show any ocean warming, either.

  And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called proxies: tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, stalagmites. Most of these haven’t shown any warming since 1940!

  Contrary to some commentary, BEST in no way confirms the scientifically discredited hockey stick graph, which was based on multi-proxy analysis and had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the hockey stick authors never published their post-1978 temperatures in their 1998 paper in Nature — or since. Their proxy record suddenly just stops in 1978 — and is then replaced by a thermometer record that shows rapid warming. The reason for hiding the post-1978 proxy data: it’s likely that they show no warming. Why don’t we try to find out?

  None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly. [Anthony Watts]

  The entire piece is worth a read.

  As usual the Global Warming believers try to claim that skeptics don’t believe global warming is happening. I have said this over and over again but the debate isn’t about whether global warming is real, it is real, how much and what is causing it that is the question. This is the same tired typical response to claim skeptics don’t think the globe is warming when all the skeptics like McIntyre, Watts, and others have openly been saying for years the globe has been warming though not as much as the AGW clergy claims and not in recent years despite record amounts of CO2 in the air. They want real science done to determine the cause not the dishonest science we are seeing now. The hockey stick graph was a manipulation of data to show a steep increase in temperatures when the actual graph shows a much lower increase in temperatures. How the alarmists can continue to defend such manipulation is beyond me.

  All skeptics ask is that the research be open and debate be allowed in order to draw firm conclusions before forcing the public to drop their standard of living, give up their vehicles, and hand over billions of dollars to Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of people set to profit from the carbon exchange. Instead we have deceptive science and people who challenge these deceptions called every horrible name in the book while the global warming clergy see the profits continue to roll in as they fly around in private jets and live in huge mansions and then have the nerve to claim that they have some kind of moral superiority over everyone else.

• Teadrinker
  7:17 am on November 25th, 2011 22

  #21,

  You do realize that the global warming denial movement was created by Exxon and Phillip Morris funded lobbyists who by design made sure that it would appear to be a grassroots movement? That’s global warming denial is purely and American phenomenon. Face it, you’re not a skeptic, you’re a dupe.

• Teadrinker
  7:18 am on November 25th, 2011 23

  Correction: That’s why…an American.

  I type way too fast.

• GI Korea
  8:29 am on November 25th, 2011 24

  Once again Teadrinker has failed to address the specific points myself, Chickenhead, and others have pointed out. He also once again claimed that we are global warming deniers when in fact as I have already repeatedly said it is clear that global warming is happening it is the amount and reasons for it that are being disputed. It is clear that for people like TD global warming is a religion and anyone challenging their dogma will be subject to ridicule.

• Teadrinker
  9:18 am on November 25th, 2011 25

  #24

  Failed to address a point? Read #22 again. It addresses all the “points” you’ve made.

• kushibo
  10:56 am on November 25th, 2011 26

  Focuing on Leonard DiCaprio or Al Gore is a red herring.

  I’m not a global warming enthusiast, but I do believe there is some there there. It existed as a science-based model long before Al Gore ever made it famous. This post shows scientists in 1970 predicting global warming if particulate pollution in the air got under control, which it later did.

  The greenhouse effect is a basic scientific model, clearly demonstrable at the micro level and at certain levels up the macro level. The question to ask for a skeptic is how and why all the CO2 we clearly put into the system cannot be having the predictable effect. (We know that atmospheric O3 can be dramatically altered by human activity through massive introduction of CFCs, and climate can change through human activity through massive introduction of particulate matter, so there is precedent to accept other human-induced pollution effects.)

  As for cap-and-trade, Al Gore did not invent that either. It was actually offered up by economists on the right as a more efficient way than across-the-board cuts to bring pollution under control. Simply put, those who could more easily and more cheaply reduce pollution could sell their left over “pollution credits” to those companies where reducing pollution would be more onerous. Pollution targets would be met, efficiency would be rewarded, and the large company that had trouble hitting the targets would not be destroyed and workers would remain on their jobs. Win-win-win. I first read about it in an Intro Economics textbook from the early 1980s that was in our bookshelf at home.

  But I’m not a global warming “alarmist.” As I wrote in the above link, I think it’s entirely possible we may wake up tomorrow and realize that it was all a great miscalculation. But erring on the side of caution would be to try to clean up the environmental mismanagement we have inflicted on our waters and our atmosphere, and the efforts to curb global warming, if for no other reason than the same activities that introduce CO2 into the system also introduce concomitant other forms of pollution, is a major part of that drive.

• ChickenHead
  12:15 pm on November 25th, 2011 27

  Kushibo,

  Once again, you failed to answer the question… and, in typical fashion, you sidestepped it with misdirection.

  Let’s look…

  “is little more than an ad hominem argument.”

  To paraphrase the famous line… I do not think that term means what you think it means… or you are being really, really insincere.

  And, since you are neither uneducated nor stupid, I think you are simply trying to brush off a serious question with a habitual defense that really only works in the mind of the one using it.

  “Al Gore’s belief in Global Warming Alarmism is insincere because he sexually assaults massage therapists” is an “ad hominem argument”.

  But, since reduced carbon emission and the duty of behavior modification are central to the debate of Global Warming Alarmism and the true belief in a coming climate catastrophe…

  “Al Gore’s belief in Global Warming Alarmism is insincere because he maintains a massive carbon footprint for his own enjoyment while demanding others reduce theirs” is a very legitimate observation that requires an explanation. Pushing that question off as a logical fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy…

  …and it doesn’t answer the question.

  “That demonstrates a possible moral failure on their part but not a factual error regarding the data.”

  You are kidding, right?

  You excuse their actions as simple “moral failure”?

  You do realize that, perhaps without exception, every actor, every singer, and every entertainer pushing Global Warming Alarmism is guilty of this “moral failure”.

  Further, every politician and every diplomat pushing Global Warming Alarmism is also guilty of this “moral failure”.

  And every scientist connected with Global Warming Alarmism also has this “moral failure”.

  And, at the top, every professional shill for Global Warming Alarmism is consumed by this “moral failure”… and is failing harder as they make more money off the alarmism.

  In fact, you may not be able to give a single example of someone promoting Global Warming Alarmism who has made ANY kind of true commitment to reducing their lifestyle.

  Does it not give you any suspicion to notice that everybody on the profit end of Global Warming Alarmism seems to share the exact same “moral failure”?

  And, most of the people pushing it from the bottom, except for a few stinkin’ hippies, share this same moral failure, as well… you included. Debate me on that if you dare.

  But I suppose it is a good thing that “moral failure” is an acceptable excuse for doing whatever one wants while demanding that others change… and profiting socially, politically, or financially from it.

  I won’t feel any guilt if I ever need to cook a whale over a pile of burning tires… and I will expect support and understanding rather than condemnation.

  “It certainly was not meant as “snide.””

  No… that comment was reserved for Teadrinker.

  …and, speaking of Teadrinker…

  Oh, Teadrinker,

  “You do realize that the global warming denial movement was created by Exxon and Phillip Morris…”

  No. Global Warming “Denial”, or, more accurately, Global Warming Alarmism Skepticism was created by…

  …me…

  …for me…

  …and, probably, by a lot of other smart people independent of any outside influence.

  Let’s take a no-bullshyt look at the whole deal.

  When real scientists make a discovery, they publish their data and methodology. They are completely open and invite other scientists to inspect their data, duplicate their work, and confirm their results. If confirmed, they will get the credit… and, if found to be wrong, they will be regarded as responsible and ethical scientists who made understandable (or sloppy) mistakes.

  The “climate scientists” have not conducted science in this way. They have been secretive, vindictive, manipulative, dishonest, dogmatic, and agenda-driven.

  If you have the “advanced degrees” you claim to have, you well know that any real scientist pushing a conclusion based on “lost” raw data and secret models will be treated by the scientific community as if a nun caught them whacking off in front of a preschool.

  …except, it seems, there are different standards for climate “scientists”.

  Their “scientific” method has nothing in common with more than a century of legitimate science which has truly protected and advanced mankind.

  They are conducting their “science” in the EXACT same way “scientists” pushing herbal cancer cures and cars that run on water conduct their “science”.

  Sometimes that makes Big News… but the follow-up, if there is one, is always very quiet…

  …which leads to…

  The Big News constantly has a new Global Warming Alarmism scare… but when they are disproved, they don’t make nearly as much noise.

  Hockey sticks, extinct polar bears, ice-free Himalayas, ice-free North Pole, extreme weather in Australia, record hurricane season in the Atlantic, grandchildren won’t know what snow is, we are already past the tipping point… the list goes on.

  And anybody who questions these claims are labeled “deniers” or “not scientists” or “crazy”…

  …when, in fact, pushing a continuous stream of transparent lies on someone and expecting them to eventually believe them comes very close to a clinical definition of crazy.

  And these alarmist lies aren’t told by tinfoil hat-wearing high school dropouts amid worries of Morgellons-causing chemtrails spread by black helicopters and nests of Reticulans under the Denver airport using HAARP to fry their brains.

  These, and other alarmist claims, are all complete fabrications pushed by leading climate “scientists”, “leading” climate-research organizations, powerful politicians, funded government agencies, Prince Charles, Al Gore, and a host of publicity-seeking singers and actors, and “reporters” who need to fill columns.

  And when they are shown to be unquestionably wrong, the excuses range from “it was an honest mistake” to “but it is truthful in the sense we still have to be worried about the coming climate catastrophe”.

  Maybe it is all just another “moral failure” on the part of those profiting from Global Warming Alarmism.

  Because it is not the truth.

  And nothing you can say will make it the truth.

  And if the alarmist message they are pushing really is the truth there is no reason to constantly lie…

  …and they would be just like every real scientist in every real science who is completely discredited after getting caught in any lie.

  Teadrinker, you are increasingly looking like you have no real education in science, no broad social experience, no moral compass to judge right from wrong, and no ability to think rationally and put those thoughts into writing to clearly explain each point of your disagreement.

  And you cannot cover these shortcomings in character or ability with snide comments, sarcastic statements, and insults, while hoping the questions will go away if you avoid them long enough.

  Your only chance to redeem any respect is to clearly answer the questions about Global Warming Alarmism.

  Failure to do so, while typing more meaningless prattle, will show you to be wrong, incapable, or both.

• Retired GI
  4:31 pm on November 25th, 2011 28

  It’s always so amusing to read what the more liberal here will write when it comes to the climate. Amazing that they never have an answer for ChinkenHead or GI Korea. Some even resort to emotional name calling. Proving their failure to back up the panic of the climate non-issue. I’m surprized no one has been called a “racist” for not having “faith” in the new “religion”.

• Teadrinker
  4:41 pm on November 25th, 2011 29

  “No. Global Warming “Denial”, or, more accurately, Global Warming Alarmism Skepticism was created by…

  …me…

  …for me…”

  Nope, the seed was planted by lobbyists.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn’t it?

• Teadrinker
  4:47 pm on November 25th, 2011 30

  #28,

  “Faith” and “religion”?

  Ha!

  The green house effect is pretty damn simple to understand, as Kushibo pointed out. Yes, there are many factors which contribute to climate change, but it remains that we are messing things up. The argument that we aren’t is a disingenuous one…that or you’re blinded by the dogma being spread by lobbyists. As I was saying, global warming denial is purely an American thing. It’s also product of your messed up political system, ironically, just like creative design is.

• Retired GI
  7:50 pm on November 25th, 2011 31

  Please enlighten me as to how we are “messing things up”.

  What is this Obsession with “lobbyists”?

  If the global warming denial IS a purely American thing, it is because America leads the world in Critical Thinking Ability. We Americans sure as hell don’t wait for the rest of the world to tell us Anything. We don’t follow, period.

  What is “creative design”? You seem to also obsess about that.

  However you are correct about our messed up political system. Sometimes some bad eggs get in, like our current President and lame assed leader of the Senate. I’ll do my part to fix that next November. Can’t speak for the rest of the country. Critical Thinking among the un-washed is lacking.

• ChickenHead
  12:55 am on November 26th, 2011 32

  Teadrinker avoids the questions again… looking increasingly incapible…

  …choosing to focus on a tiny aspect of a small and pointless side issue… and not even being effective at it.

  Because… it doesn’t take guidance to recognize and disapprove of a stream of lies.

  As there has been no demonstration of them, I am starting to suspect all his “science education” and “advanced degrees” are mythical and we simply are dealing with another LBH posing as something more.

  I have met “international lawyers” who know nothing about the law, “pilots” who can’t discuss radio procedures, “chemists” who give blank looks when asking the difference between ethyl and methyl, “automation consultants” unaware of PWM… and now a holder of “advanced science degrees” who seems unable to discuss basic research procedures and research community culture… nor the more general things one learns in life such as the relationship between true thinking and action.

  I think Teadrinker works at a children’s hogwon and that is that.

  But in response to his comment… any “seeds” that might have been planted grew well in a field filled with Global Warming Alarmism Bullshyt.

• Tom Langley
  2:40 am on November 26th, 2011 33

  Teadrinker, those on the left of the political spectrum are very good about finding corporate sponsorship of whatever cause that they oppose. Nobody so far has made mention of the corporations that Al Gore has that will make a mint if the cap & trade (cap & tax as Sean Hannity calls it more accurately) scam is passed. We have just seen the Solyndra mess with an Obama campaign contributor involved. George Soros has funded a lot of the left wing political activity & I’m sure he has figured out ways of making money on some of the leftist initiatives. My point is that corporate influences go both ways, to democrats & republicans.

• ChickenHead
  6:59 pm on November 26th, 2011 34

  Well.

  A habit of educated and successful people is their ability to defend their beliefs with something more than empty sarcasm and insults.

  When faced with reasonable questions, they respond with reasonable answers. If unable to respond, they reevaluate their beliefs.

  Teadrinker did not respond in an intellegent way. Kushibo responded weakly. Glans did not even try.

  The conclusion is that Teadrinker is just another LBH bragging about an imaginary advanced education and representing his low-level hogwon job as something more.

  Kushibo is starting to recognize that he has been taken in by Global Warming Alarmism and needs some time sort out his thoughts on the matter.

  Glans only answers questions with questions in an attempt to misdirect any debate… but this is an issue where more questions only lead to more exposure of the truth about Global Warming Alarmism.

  Since the three biggest defenders of Global Warming Alarmism connot defend it, it seems to add to the overwhelming body of indication that it is all a big scam… a personality cult based on celebrity and a desire for the weak-minded to find comfort from manufactured fear.

  Good job guys. You have helped your religion to be exposed as a fraud.

• kushibo
  8:09 pm on November 26th, 2011 35

  Kushibo responded weakly.

  No, I answered appropriately. You see, despite my apparent passion for my positions, I only comment on ROK Drop in order to provide links back to my own blog so as to generate hits, which are the coin of the realm.

  Once I got two of them out there in #12 and #26, my work was done. I actually couldn’t care less about global warming or any other topic discussed here at ROK Drop and only wish to profit getting hits to Monster Island.

• ChickenHead
  8:20 pm on November 26th, 2011 36

  Once again, Global Warming Alarmism has been “defended” with sarcasm instead of reason.

  Is there not a single believer who can defend their beliefs?

  …or are Global Warming Alarmism believers much bigger dipshyts than I ever guessed?

• scott
  10:17 pm on November 26th, 2011 37

  @chickenhead
  Or the above people have better things to do than argue on the the internet with someone named ‘chickenhead’ who, it seems to me, already missed their point the first time.

  One of your prominent arguments is “Gore and some people like him cause pollution so therefore they do not truly believe that pollution is a problem.”

  If that is the main reason (or one of the main reasons) why you don’t believe the climate change claims, then it is indeed a variety of the ad hominem attack. Rather than criticizing the actual arguments, you attack the person making the argument. It is still a legitimate criticism of those individuals, but it can’t stand as a reason to accept or reject the idea itself.

  So yes, you can attack those individuals who don’t ‘practice what they preach’, and more power to you. But as to the question of whether or not climate change is occurring (do you think that temperatures in this past decade have NOT increased?) and that it might be caused by increasing carbon emissions, it is completely irrelevant.

  And for you and others here that are in the skeptic camp, can you clarify exactly what your argument against climate change is? Is it..

  A. Temperatures have not increased in the past few decades. It’s all a lie.

  B. Temperatures have increased in the past few decades, but there is no strong reason to believe it is due to human activity.

  It’s unclear at times which argument you are making. If it is A, then explain how the scientific community in every country is able to conspire to such. Explain why countries like China or India allow their scientists to play along, even though these findings go against their economic interests.

  If it is B, then stick to that point. Show how you are all so damn sure that increasing carbon emissions does not play a role in the warming climate. Show why the consensus of scientists around the world, even including those who are not atheist liberals, conclude that climate change is man made. Explain why researchers at universities with a more conservative and religious background aren’t stepping forward in large numbers to challenge the findings.

  And as for Muller, if he was one of the “evil conspirators of climate change hoax” all along, why did he so famously criticize the ‘hockey stick’ data? He missed a memo? And why did the Koch brothers fund his research? I don’t recall the deniers ever blasting Muller before his recent study. Sounds to me more like a very honest researcher doing his job properly, regardless of what the ideologues and funders want.

  Or is the only good researcher the one who tells you what you already wanted to hear?

• scott
  10:51 pm on November 26th, 2011 38

  Oops. Should have reread GI’s comment on Muller before including that last paragraph. Got his comments on Muller mixed up with a commenter on another site who was claiming Muller was a part of the conspiracy all along. Should have remembered that GI has never gone that far.

  Please mentally delete the last paragraph (except for any readers who it might actually apply to, of course, in which case you should suck on it long and hard).

  And one more question: If carbon emissions is not to blame for the sudden spike in temperatures, what are the competing theories? Yes, the earth has gone through cycles in temperatures long before man was even around, but have they ever risen this quickly? Even if you disbelieve the evidence presented thus far that there is a correlation between temperature increase and carbon emissions, don’t you ever pause to consider it is a real possibility?

  Because if it is the case, then we’re screwed.

• ChickenHead
  12:21 am on November 27th, 2011 39

  Scott,

  Thank you for a reply that contained no real insults and no lame attempts at deflection by humor or sarcasm.

  Sadly, it contained no meaningful content.

  You have, through foolishness or intention, misstated my point and then attacked this weakened creation.

  Further, you are trying to reframe the discussion to focus attention away from the difficult questions which you cannot answer.

  You create debate where there is none and claim victory in an argument that does not exist… but still avoid answering the real questions just as the others have done.

  I have said nothing about temperature trends.

  I have simply asked if global warming is something to be alarmed about.

  Those pushing the alarm the loudest are not acting alarmed… but are profiting from their alarmism. It appears to be a universal behavior without exception among the involved scientists, politicians, celebrities, and professional shills.

  No amount of excuses, from “moral failings” to “they just don’t practice what they preach” changes this widespread behavior or what it implies…

  …and only those in on the scam or complete suckers try to discount this observation as not being important when deciding how big of threat global warming is and what kinds of sacrifices should be forced upon the population.

  This unconcerned behavior is compounded by the constant stream of oughtright lies perpetuated by these alarmists.

  Taken in its totality, and regardless of the validity of the temperature trends or predicted effects, there seems to be no need for concern about global warming…

  …as those who do know the real truth are not at all concerned.

  And no amount of excuses or manufactured talking points changes that.

• Teadrinker
  4:42 am on November 27th, 2011 40

  These emails are from the same batch which were stolen in 2009, and just like then, extracts of emails are being presented out of context and released at a date to best disrupt the impending climate talks, which are now being in South Africa.

  http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html#3-1

  http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html

  Oh, and an independent study has found that global warming is real:

  http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/index.html

• Teadrinker
  4:42 am on November 27th, 2011 41

  …being held…

• Denny
  6:13 am on November 27th, 2011 42

  It’s like the Y2K bug scare of 01/01/00, a bunch of false alarm and hysteria.

• Retired GI
  7:09 am on November 27th, 2011 43

  Whenever the call goes out that panic is required, I watch those that sent out the call.

  Actions speak loader than words.

  CO2 my ars. Whatever happened to the hole in the ozon? Haven’t heard much in a few YEARS now; or the global cooling of the 70′s?

  Like gay’s wanting to marry, it is all about the money.

• GI Korea
  7:34 am on November 27th, 2011 44

  @40 – Of course these e-mails are being leaked at strategic times to put egg on the faces of the warmists before their holy gatherings where they want to attempt to force all of us to make sacrifices to their religion while the high priests live high and mighty.

  It is funny how the defenders of these high priests try to deflect Climategate. First they say the e-mails are not real. After it is confirmed the e-mails are real they then say they are taken out of context. When it is confirmed that the e-mails do in fact show them distorting data, deleting e-mails to avoid FOI requests, coordinating to silence people skeptical of their work, etc. they then say the e-mails are old. After that wears thin they will then launch a investigation of themselves that will show this is much to do about nothing. Rinse and repeat.

  And your link proving global warming is from Professor Muller’s team at Berkeley which did not prove AGW. They proved that temperature on 29% of the Earth’s surface using nothing but poorly distributed temperature stations, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe have shown an increase in temperatures. He even admitted that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by the US government and that most of the rest of the world’s temperature stations are even worse.

  He admits that he does not know the cause of the warming and favors naturally caused oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system that no climate model has yet simulated. Leave it to a warmist to claim that this proves AGW. By the way this study that “proves AGW” as you claim was funded by the Koch Foundation which earlier in the thread was condemned.

• ChickenHead
  8:10 am on November 27th, 2011 45

  Teadrinker yet again avoids answering a direct question.

  In yet another display of his poor reasoning skills, his attempt to direct the conversation to a place where some chance of debate exists has actually strengthened the un-debatable key issue being discussed here.

  In this age of free Internet communication, why do all of these people claiming to be so worried about carbon footprints need to fly to a remote corner of the world to have a fancy carbon-intensive meeting?

  This is yet another complete group-wide “moral failure” and practice/preach inversion… but it is also a clear and undeniable indication of just how seriously they take any threat of global warming.

  And none of the Global Warming Alarmist here have been able to explain this away.

• kushibo
  11:26 am on November 27th, 2011 46

  Retired GI wrote:
  

  Whatever happened to the hole in the ozon? Haven’t heard much in a few YEARS now;

  Well, then, you haven’t really been paying attention. At the very least, seasonal fluctuations of the hole over Antarctica and the dimple over the Arctic are reported in the news. (You apparently skipped over my comment #26, which directly mentioned ozone.)

  But what’s interesting to note is the differences between action and reaction to CFC-induced ozone depletion and CO2/CH4/etc-enhanced greenhouse effect.

  The science for both is moderately complex but straightforward. The differences lie in other aspects. For starters, CFCs are essentially exclusively manmade chemicals, unlike CO2, CH4, and other greenhouse gases, so an increase in their appearance in the upper atmosphere cannot be explained by any other source, eliminating a source of denial by special interests (e.g., CFC and halon manufacturers).

  Second, despite deniers and special interests working against efforts to reduce or eliminate CFCs, the political effort by scientists has largely been successful with the initial Montreal Protocol and especially its subsequent strengthening. We have nearly completely phased out the manmade ozone-depleting chemicals that we know of.

  Thirdly, the problem of ozone-depletion appears to have slowed or halted, though it has not yet appeared to reverse itself (such a process may take several years, owing to the time it takes for CFCs and halons to reach the upper atmosphere and then to eventually become inactive vis-à-vis O3 depletion).
  

  or the global cooling of the 70′s?

  That was something else you missed in comment #26. I included THIS LINK to the very question about what’s up with scientists predicting global cooling in the 1970s. Go and read it, especially the highlighted parts of the contemporary Time quotes. I wrote about it in #26 in the context of how we know that human activity on a large scale can in fact affect climatic conditions.

  In short, the gist of the linked post is that increased amounts of particulate matter in the air was thought responsible for global cooling, something which could have been disastrous had we left it unchecked. But massive efforts were made to improve air quality by reducing particulate matter, to great success in the industrialized world, and that cooling trend would logically be reversed.

  It would be interesting to see how China’s recent jump in particulate matter pollution over the past ten years may be affecting things. They are making a mess over there and one would expect it to have some effect, at least locally. (Particulate matter pollution, by the way, would likely be responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths per year, but that’s another story for another day.)

  Interestingly, the Time article I quoted has scientists talking about how efforts to expand temperature-reading setups and other measures of climate would lead to improved and enhanced climate modeling; the result of those efforts was the consensus that the Earth is warming.
  

  Like gay’s wanting to marry, it is all about the money.

  As usual, Retired GI comes up with a zinger that he thinks perfectly describes the other side but which also — and often more so — applies to his own position as well.

  Whether global climate change is partly human-induced or not, the side opposed to any changes is hugely driven by financial interests. They would be even if they were wholly wrong, and of course even if they were wholly right.

  The question is what they would do if they were wholly wrong. Would they insist they were right and launch a disinformation campaign designed to instill doubt about a widely held scientific consensus? CFC-induced ozone depletion was labeled “a science fiction,” “a load of rubbish,” and “utter nonsense” by the Chair of the Board at DuPont, one of the major producers of CFCs which were to be banned. Efforts were made to quash research by Dr Sherwood Rowland, one of my chem professors at UCI who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of the causes of the ozone hole.

  Since you brought it up, do you disagree with the ozone depletion phenomenon? Do you just think whenever scientists say things, it must be false (as bad or worse than simply assuming they must be correct). Do you believe HPV vaccination causes mental retardation? (Admittedly, that’s not really related to ozone depletion, but the source of thinking that produces such an attitude is remarkably similar.)

  …

  Anyway, I wanted to point out that we learned extensively about the greenhouse effect in college General Chemistry, utterly devoid of any political undertones or intent. And I learned about the benefits of cap-and-trade as an alternative to across-the-board efforts to reduce pollution from a college Economics text. It made no mention of Al Gore or global warming or anything like that.

  These two things were and are sound physical scientific and social scientific principles, respectively. Oh, yeah, and pollution kills. If any here have lived in Seoul in the early 1980s or in California in the 1970s, ask yourself if you would like to go back to those times and raise kids. Yet, we had industry kicking and screaming about how the environmental regulations designed to reduce deadly (yes, deadly) pollution would destroy the economy and jobs.

  And that’s my one post for the day. Breakfast is over and I have to get to work on some serious things going on in my life away from this computer.

• kushibo
  12:44 pm on November 27th, 2011 47

  Chickenhead wrote:
  

  And you cannot cover these shortcomings in character or ability with snide comments, sarcastic statements, and insults, while hoping the questions will go away if you avoid them long enough.

  Chickenhead has his panties in a wad because he thinks people are being snide, sarcastic, and insulting instead of serious? Really… Chickenhead?!

  You’re taking the piss, right?

• ChickenHead
  12:54 pm on November 27th, 2011 48

  Retired GI,

  Please don’t muddy up the water.

  Global Warming Alarmists will viciously counter any incorrect information and hail the victory as affirmation that Global Warming Alarmism is completely valid… as, unlike in science, they play for “points”… not realizing that in real science, one contrary result invalidates the theory.

  And while they will write pages of real, speculative, and misrepresented “science” to back up their narrow claims, they will not address the key questions with answers that invalidate the theory.

  Those questions are answered with diversion, dismissive ridicule, or uncomfortable silence.

  The biggest question being, rephrased in yet another way…

  Why are the people who are in a position to know the absolute truth, and who continuously claim to know the truth, saying that we are on the brink of global disaster… but not acting like we are on the brink of any disaster… and actually openly and excessively doing the things they claim are causing this disaster?

  When this can be explained without nonsensical attempts like an amazing 100% “moral failure” rate of everyone involved, I will at least rise to their concern about the looming disaster of global warming.

  Actually, there IS a moral failure.

  They are advancing their careers, their power, and their finances by scamming the suckers that are born every minute.

  And the bottom rank of Global Warming Alarmists are some true suckers…

  …but, rather conspicuously, not quite big enough suckers to make any personal sacrifices…

  …just big enough suckers to claim moral and intellectual superiority and think others buy into it.

• ChickenHead
  1:18 pm on November 27th, 2011 49

  Kushibo,

  When a man makes a statement, he must be able to defend it when questioned or he must back down and ponder its legitimacy.

  There are a few moments of shame in changing one’s mind but there is continuous shame in insisting on something indefensible.

  As people have different experiences, there may be disagreement over the validity of the defense. That is understandable… and I can respect those I disagree with who have rational and explainable reasons for their beliefs.

  But when a man runs his trap… especially when instructing others… and cannot or will not defend his statements or ideas, he is unworthy of any respect…

  …and, as he has shown himself to be without intellectual honesty, reasoning skills, or logical thought, he may be treated with ridicule.

  Many of the world’s problems are due to this type of man… as they are masking an evil intent or supporting that evil intent by following it without critical thinking.

  It is a civil duty to discourage this behavior at every opportunity.

  Kushibo, I think you have more intellectual honesty than many. Give me the no-bullsyt answer. What’s up with these people?

• kushibo
  2:11 pm on November 27th, 2011 50

  ChickenHead wrote:
  

  When a man makes a statement, he must be able to defend it when questioned or he must back down and ponder its legitimacy.

  I am perfectly willing to defend or explain any statement I’ve made.

  Maybe I’ve missed it in these pages and pages of comments, but I don’t recall you asking questions about the statements that I have actually made. I believe you’ve asked questions about Al Gore and what-not, which I believe is a red herring, as my support of the need to reduce pollutant footprints, to include CO2 and CH4, depends in no way whatsoever on what Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio believes or does.

  This is the end of the semester, which is crunch time for me, while I’m also balancing some serious goings-on on the Mainland and back in Korea. I have time to make some a comment here and there while I’m eating breakfast or what-not, as I did above, but I am in no way required to engage you in your beating a red herring to death. Especially when you complain that I don’t answer your questions but you also don’t ask mine. You’re being disingenuous.

• kushibo
  2:47 pm on November 27th, 2011 51

  ChickenHead wrote:
  

  Retired GI,
  Please don’t muddy up the water.

  Why not? Retired GI is not the first to ask, as some form of the question “Didn’t these same climate scientists predict global cooling back in the 1970s?!” has been a favorite tactic in the doubters’ toolbox for quite some time now.

  And frankly, I think it’s a valid question, which is why I wrote that post (linked now in #26 and #46) addressing the question back in 2008.

• ChickenHead
  3:37 pm on November 27th, 2011 52

  Again, you avoid the question…

  …this time, with an accusation that I don’t answer your questions… although the only one I can find is inquiring if my panties are sufficiently wadded…

  …with the answer being… “not completely”.

  So, once again, a Global Warming Alarmist has not answered a sincere and relevant question, has tried to divert the conversation away from the question, and has resorted to tired insults.

  None-the-less, we are not talking about Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio. We are talking about EVERYONE involved… hundreds or thousands of scientists, politicians, entertainers, activists, etc.

  If you really expect to push your beliefs on others, you have to be willing to openly and honestly answer questions about your beliefs. Otherwise, you are talking out of your azz… and many can recognize it.

  Avoiding the questions by evoking false logical fallacies does not answer the question. Saying the answer doesn’t matter doesn’t answer the question. Blaming the questioner for not answering your questions doesn’t answer the question. No amount of bullshyt that you sling will answer the question.

  Answering the question will answer the question.

  If global warming is something to be alarmed about, why are the people directly involved with researching and promoting global warming not acting alarmed?

  A follow-up question might be…

  If you see a group of this size saying one thing and acting in a completely opposite way, does this not stir your interest in any way?

  And one other thing…

  Promoting CO2 and pollution as equal threats is really, really crappy and counterproductive.

  There is a big difference between CO2 which plants eat and plastic bags which sea turtles eat. The immediate scourge of pollution is a serious problem which is taking a back seat to non-productive Global Warming Alarmism in both publicity and financing.

  In a way, Global Warming Alarmist are causing more harm to the environment than they are stopping.

  Shameful.

• kushibo
  4:06 pm on November 27th, 2011 53

  ChickenHead wrote:
  

  an accusation that I don’t answer your questions… although the only one I can find is inquiring if my panties are sufficiently wadded

  Well, primarily I was thinking about this in #26:
  

  The greenhouse effect is a basic scientific model, clearly demonstrable at the micro level and at certain levels up the macro level. The question to ask for a skeptic is how and why all the CO2 we clearly put into the system cannot be having the predictable effect. (We know that atmospheric O3 can be dramatically altered by human activity through massive introduction of CFCs, and climate can change through human activity through massive introduction of particulate matter, so there is precedent to accept other human-induced pollution effects.)

  See, any belief I have in human-induced greenhouse effect has nothing to do with what politicians or celebrities are promoting it. The science has long appeared to be sound, even if some who are invested in it now appear to be (or are made to appear to be) acting defensively regarding their research.

  Your line of argument ultimately, and this was the point I was trying to make early on, does nothing to refute or verify or the veracity of the scientific claims. It is a red herring.

  Why would they do it? I don’t know. Nor do I know if they are really doing as you say. You are, after all, the one who sees Obama getting off a plane in Hawaii without a suit and tie as being a sign he is “ghetto,” so you’ll excuse me if I don’t place full faith in your judgements about who is worthy or unworthy and who is or is not hypocritical, as in this case. Ultimately, as I’ve already pointed out, it doesn’t matter because it is the science, not the science’s messenger, that is the actual issue.

  I believe that excessive factory farming of beef and pork in the US, and meat consumption in general, is a danger to our health and our environment. But gosh darn it, sometimes I want to eat a burger. Is this a moral failing on my part. I think it might be. But does it mean I actually don’t believe in the economic, biological, environmental, and political principles behind my belief that we are on a dangerous trajectory with our factory farming and our beef and pork consumption? Not by a long shot.

  And so I can imagine there may be something else at work in the answer to your question. Maybe they’re all hypocrites. Maybe they think that by wining and dining the powerful they can win more hearts and minds. Maybe the footprint they’re creating isn’t as great as you’re making it out to be. Maybe Al Gore’s inherited home has a high energy bill in part because he opted for the more expensive option of paying for energy from renewable sources, plus the house is huge and it’s also a working office. Maybe it’s hard for celebrities to give up their jet setting lifestyle.

  But none of that relates to whether the science and the theories, around long before Al Gore wrote An Inconvenient Truth are on the right track or utterly wrong.
  

  Promoting CO2 and pollution as equal threats is really, really crappy and counterproductive.

  No, it’s not. CO2 pollution is concomitant with many other types of pollution that are co-created with it. As well, petroleum and coal extraction that will eventually be a source of CO2 is requiring riskier and riskier ventures. The BP oil spill was not a glitch but a prelude. Extraction and processing of the bitumen in the tar sands of Alberta and the pipeline that will eventually be built to bring it to the US is an environmental disaster even when it’s working properly and will be a nightmare when something eventually goes wrong.

  Nuclear, I believe, is one of the major ways to go. Solar and other forms should also be aggressively developed, because the problem with them is a lack of economy of scale for yet-undiscovered ways of making it efficient. But powers-that-be want us to keep doing it the old way, because they benefit financially even if the rest of us pay for it in externalities. Fracking, mountaintop removal, and bitumen extraction are nasty, nasty, nasty things to engage in, but that’s what we’re in for.

• someotherguy
  8:06 pm on November 27th, 2011 54

  Damn I take a few days off and I miss an opportunity to publicly embarrass a bunch of leftists. Looks like CH and GI got this one tied up.

  Gotta say, it was funny seeing TD trying to use the cognitive dissonance rational thought theory in practice. He doesn’t even know what it means lol.

  CD is the theory that shows that once the human conscious has made a decision to create a belief, it will then seek to confirm that belief whenever possible and that when reality disputes that belief the mind will subconsciously support alternatives to describe reality as confirming that belief.

  TD decides to belief that grass is purple. Upon walking outside TD sees that grass is green. TD then states that the grass has changed color and humans are causing the grass to turn this unnatural color green. Or TD will then state that the grass was always purple and that it’s our eyes that are wrong and see it as green.

  Dissonance is when there is a conflict between the reality the mind has perceived and the reality as it actually exists. This creates a subconscious conflict involving stress and anxiety. Humans have demonstrated a natural tendency of our subconscious to protect the conscious by altering our perceptions of external reality to match with what our internal reality is, rather then accepting our internal reality as wrong.

  It’s a really long winded way to say that humans will refuse to admit they were wrong even when evidence demonstrating such is provided. The natural tendency is to disregard the rational evidence in favor of reenforcing preexisting beliefs.

  AGW has already been disproved in mainstream hard sciences. Oceanologists, Glaciologists, Biologists, Physicists, Meteorologists and even Atmospheric Physicists all dispute the findings of Mann and the IPCC.

  What people keep overlooking is that Climatology is a very new pseudo science that attempts to study and discern short and long term climate trends. It’s pure statistical analysis and modeling of data, that’s all. They don’t actually conduct any research nor do experiments, only take data that other groups have accumulated and try to discern a pattern from that data to model our climate. It started off pretty good, but got hi-jacked by political activists and corporatists looking to make money. That much grant money is simply too hard a cash cow to turn away from and thus pretty much every climatologist is forced to pay lip service for “the cause” or have their funding removed and their name black balled from their own research field.

  Science is NEVER settled, it’s never about conscious, its absolutely NOT about people agreeing with each other. It’s not decided by committee or an actor nor a politician. Its the rational application of the scientific method to gather data based on empirical study. You don’t change a 4 into a 5 because it’s politically correct to do so.

• someotherguy
  8:29 pm on November 27th, 2011 55

  “Promoting CO2 and pollution as equal threats is really, really crappy and counterproductive.

  There is a big difference between CO2 which plants eat and plastic bags which sea turtles eat. The immediate scourge of pollution is a serious problem which is taking a back seat to non-productive Global Warming Alarmism in both publicity and financing.

  In a way, Global Warming Alarmist are causing more harm to the environment than they are stopping.”

  I really hate this, that their coupling environmental conservation, something I deeply believe in, with the myth that is AGW theory. Seriously, CO2 is plant food, why are we trying to starve the plants. For a long time now the earth’s plants have been running very lean on CO2, for optimal growth it actually needs to go up an entire order of magnitude. Hydroponics and industrial greenhouses know this and actually try to run their air CO2 rich to encourage plant growth.

  Now if we REALLY want to discuss atmospheric gas’s, CO2 is the least of our worries. We need to be talking global Oxygen levels. Currently their approx 20~21%, 100 million years ago they were 30%, 250 million years ago less then 15%.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sauerstoffgehalt-1000mj2.png

  We as humans can not survive low oxygen levels for very long without some serious biological repercussions.

  For the green house gas’s, its not CO2 that is the devil but methane. CO2 is heavier then the Nitrogen – Oxygen mixture that makes up our atmosphere. It will always gravitate back towards the ground where our large oceans absorb it. It’ll also be absorbed into cloud formations and deposited back onto the ground in the form of rain and snow. Methane on the other hand doesn’t do that. Methane is lighter then air and tends to always gravitate to the ionosphere. Only way to remove methane is through cosmic radiation catalyzing chemical reactions and nuclear transmutation. As humans there is absolute ZERO we can do to accelerate the reduction of methane already in the upper atmosphere. We’re entirely at the mercy of the solar wind. This creates a very real upper limit to the amount of terrestrial methane that can be produced. But its MUCH harder to tax and profit off industrial methane, CO2 is such an easier and more profitable target.

• Retired GI
  8:41 pm on November 27th, 2011 56

  #55 Nice to have you back Someotherguy

• Teadrinker
  7:10 am on November 28th, 2011 57

  #44, et al.

  And who is leaking these emails? As I was saying, global warming denial was thought up by lobbyists who designed it so that it would appear to be a “grassroots movement” (a very American term to express a very American concept in politics). So, who drank the Koolaid again?

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

• someotherguy
  7:00 pm on November 28th, 2011 58

  @57,

  The same people who released the first batch of emails.

  Seriously how blind can you guys be. Their talking about DELETING EMAIL TO AVOID A FOIA REQUEST. Their there talking about to hide and manipulate data for their report. Talking about datasets that don’t support their theory and how to remove them and hide the removal from the report.

  … really .. there are things you do NOT do as a scientist. Under no circumstance do you modify the data to fix your theory. You modify your theory to fit the data. This isn’t science, its politics masquerading as science.

• Teadrinker
  6:01 am on November 29th, 2011 59

  #58,
  2011 10th warmest year since 1850:

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUSEGKJg9ZgOzwrbhnE_QptC5eyQ?docId=cdc3bd8ce82a4615ad32197137ce8f49

• parker
  9:21 am on December 2nd, 2011 60

  #8
  [quote]Your posts on areas within your expertise are great, and hard to come by elsewhere. But on climate change, it feels more like a propaganda site with interest in only showing one side of the issue.[/quote]

  My sentiments exactly. I have no desire to debate the merits of the issue on here, and by no means am I defending the behavior of any specific activists, public figures or celebrities; I agree that people in the spotlight often appear to be idiots. But beyond the fact that they seem unrelated to the purpose of the blog, my problem is that almost all posts on this site related to the environment (this particular post isn’t a great example but there are plenty of others) consist of circular arguments and loaded vocabulary that serve to completely dismiss the other side in a very condescending way.

  I will continue to read the blog as I really think there is a lot of good stuff on here; I’ll just make sure to not take the ones tagged “climategate” and “global warming” too seriously.

• ChickenHead
  2:46 pm on December 3rd, 2011 61

  America is probably going to exit the global climate change agreement so it doesn’t have to burden its economy by paying for fake carbon credits.

  Further, it will allow for more immediate energy and economic development… and, if global warming is true, it will increase food production and quality of life.

  Wait, did I say America?

  I meant America, Jr.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Notify me of new posts by email.

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.