Climategate: how deep the rot?
Climategate is endlessly fascinating; I could write and read about it all day if I let myself. It has many of the most suspenseful elements of fiction (Michael Crichton fiction, to be exact), but truth tends to be stranger—and to me, much more compelling.
The fact that Climategate is not in banner headlines in all newspapers, with several-hour-long specials about it on all the cable news networks, is excellent proof (as if we needed more) that the press is hopelessly compromised and playing coverup.
The ploy may or may not work. Even some liberal MSM outlets have been forced to deal with the news, although it has hardly been spotlighted. The NY Times, for example, has a piece on the subject today which, although not on the front page, it is at least somewhat fair in laying out the problems Climategate exposes. In the end, however, the author sums up with a dismissive, kneejerk “of course, AGW is still probably true” disclaimer.
This appears to be the new and acceptable mantra for those on the liberal/Left side who aren’t dismissing Climategate outright—that even though this particular crew (CRU) at East Anglia may be a problem, the science itself is not. That’s absurd, of course, but it fits in well with the “telling a higher truth” message that liberals and the Left have been using for quite some time to explain away inconvenient “lower” truths, such as the fact that the CRU research was a huge part of the foundation for the entire theory of AGW, and the data supposedly supporting the structure is reported by CRU as having been conveniently lost.
Throwing out that data has given new meaning to the term “garbage in, garbage out.” But hey, it’s gone now; no big whoop.
There do seem to be a couple of lone voices among the AGW faithful who understand that Climategate is serious and calls for some response. Surprisingly, one of them is arguably the most fanatic of AGW proponents, George Monbiot, the journalist who gave his name to the expression “moonbat.”
Monbiot’s commentary on Climategate is a fascinating document, showing a man confronting the possible collapse of his lifework, and facing it and denying it almost simultaneously:
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
It turns out that Monbiot is still at least somewhat of an idealist, and thinks his fellow AGW-supporters are, too. How well I know that feeling of utter aloneness, when it dawns on you that you’ve gone down a different (and more logical) road, and your buddies just aren’t following.
Monbiot’s position is the one I described earlier in this piece: to make Jones and the other CRU bigwigs the fall guys, but to keep belief in their findings intact. His entire worldview depends on it. But at least Monbiot (and Clive Crook, here) shows a modicum of intellectual integrity compared to those who dismiss Climategate as of no import at all
I’m hoping that knowledge of Climategate will build in the public at large, as well as outrage at the extreme politicizing of the field. Whether the whole thing is a Cloward-Piven crisis manufactured solely for political statist reasons, or whether it is merely a case of good scientists gone bad and then picked up by politicians for their own purposes, remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, the answer may never be known. But if the press was dedicated to doing what it should be doing—searching for the truth, wherever it leads—we’d at least have a chance of finding out.
[NOTE: In the comments section here you’ll find a good discussion of whether there is independent corroboration of AGW from sources that don’t rely on the CRU data. The gist is that no one seems to know at the moment. But it is an important question that needs answering.
And then, if there are such independent sources, all of their data and correspondence about it needs to be made completely transparent. Until this is done, there should be a moratorium on all legislation related to AGW.
Fat chance.]
You referenced the following:
“independent corroboration of AGW from sources that don’t rely on the CRU data”…
FWIW, the only “independent data” I have seen referenced, as I read on this topic, as a way of sidestepping the whole ripe mess that is CRU has been referencing temperature data from ground sources.
Unfortunately for the disciples of Gore, my understanding is that even that data is quite incomplete and subject to an environment changing around the ground stations over a period of years – so it’s about next to worthless.
“. . . the author sums up with a dismissive, kneejerk ‘of course, AGW is still probably true’ disclaimer.”
If memory serves, this was the same justification used by Dan Rather to justify the publication of the falsified documents about President Bush.
This “telling the higher truth” as you label it should not only reveal the left as a dogmatic win-at-any-cost movement, but it should also be of great concern to us all. I prefer to call it “euphemizing a lie.” When I see/hear this, I can not help but think of Kim Jong Il, Stalin and, yes, even Adolf Hitler. How can people NOT see that this is the direction the left would lead us?
my post was swallowed.
too big to redo… too much history.
sigh
The thought just occurred to me….is what is revealed in these emails about how they rigged things to go their way, got rid of people who disagreed with them, rigged results, ostracized any critical voices, etc., something similar to what was done within the US higher education system – only in pre-email days – for the left to so thoroughly have taken over those institutions?
We are living in the nuttiest of times. Infectious idiocy colluding with obscene opportunism. It is all simply bizarre, takes my breath away.
I sure hate sitting on the sidelines watching this vicious and stupid game play itself out. It is a revolting prospect.
Fortunately (for some), gold continues to rise. Others are sheep, shearing themselves for the wool.
Scottie,
The short answer to your question is yes. With the exception of fields like engineering, computer science, and natural science, conservatives were not hired, and if hired were not tenured. Additionally, white males faced a difficult road to advancement and white male students could be abused. In short order you have a self perpetuating system.
blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/12/column-groupthink-and-the-global-warming-industry-.html#more
Groupthink and the global warming industry
By Jonah Goldberg
I spent this holiday with my half-brother and his family. He’s an idealistic, progressive, somewhat New Age-ish person. I like him a lot.
We discussed ClimateGate and he is not so close-minded as to miss my points that some of the most prominent AGW scientists have been caught red-handed rigging the science game in favor of AGW and that AGW science may not be so settled after all.
However … his response was “So? Maybe it’s for the best if it forces people to build cars with better mileage and to live more sustainably.”
I was surprised to hear him speak so cynically since by nature he is a deeply honest person. But like many Democrats he feels that conservatives and the corporate world have lied, exploited, and endangered the world that subterfuge is justified.
It hadn’t occurred to me that this cold-blooded cynicism was present so close to me. But then again, perhaps this is more typical among those who supported Obama and the leftist agenda than I realized.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
My favorite take on this was a commenter on The Atlantic (quoted from memory):
“If AGW is a fraud, the CRU scientists should be humiliated. If AGW is real, they should be shot.”
Climategate’s real fallout isn’t that it’s proof that AGW was a sham all along, but proof that the processes by which it has been monitored were a sham. The change in the atmosphere’s CO2 content are extremely worrying to me, because there are such things as tipping points and forcings in the natural world (as anyone who has safely cut down trees can tell you), not to mention the simple mathematical fact that the increase in CO2 content of our atmosphere must necessarily be matched by declines in other gases whose lack may have even more devastating effects on the world.
But now we’re back to square one in predicting exactly what the effect will be, whether it’s warming, cooling, or even the entire Earth exploding like Superman’s Krypton. All that Climategate has done is make it so that, even if half the planet were to explode as a direct result of excess CO2 in the atmosphere, the survivors would still reject any evidence from the CRU, and possibly any self-proclaimed “climate authority,” that it was actually caused by CO2, no matter how loudly they proclaim the science “settled.”
Ultimately, the damage done by the wolf is primarily the fault of the boy who cried “WOLF!” when there was none, until everyone stopped listening.
“… there should be a moratorium on all legislation related to AGW.”
This afternoon, by coincidence, I finished Climate Confusion, by Roy W. Spencer, published in 2008, long before the hacked emails were exposed. He is a former NASA Meteorologist and Senior Scientist specializing in climate studies. He covered it all, the emails are anti-climactic. There should be a moratorium on all spending authorized by the Democrats, they’ve morphed into an organization only marginally short of bonafide racketeering…
… along with the U.N.
My final post to Gavin Schmidt:
Gavin: I will write my elected officials for the release of all AGW data. I will also write them:
* for the release of all AGW methodology associated with that data and AGW studies
* to cease all AGW legislation pending independent review of all AGW work being used
as the basis for AGW bills like cap-and-trade.
* to have you and your colleagues investigated on the basis of the CRU Hack
You are not honest scientists. Judging from the CRU Hack and your constant evasion of opening AGW methodology (incuding who did what to which data and how), I can see that you are no more serious about having AGW research inspected and replicated than you are in having open honest debate on RealClimate, where you repeatedly resort to evasion, equivocation, censorship, and ridicule to control and squelch discussion — much the same strategy of your colleagues displayed in the CRU Hack.
Whatever the reality of AGW may be, I am now convinced that the AGW movement, as presently constituted, must be opposed. Thanks for your help in coming to that decision.
“So? Maybe it’s for the best if it forces people to build cars with better mileage and to live more sustainably.”
In other words, the ends justify the means. It’s perfectly OK to lie to people, to commit fraud on a massive scale, in order to coerce people into doing what you believe is the right thing.
I cannot imagine a more arrogant, condescending attitude than that.
UPDATE:
Phil Jones has just resigned as head of CRU. Wonder who’s next?
A.J. Strata believes CRU East Anglia had the raw temperature data as late as 2008, maybe into 2009. He believes he has found the raw data in the hacked information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Climate “science” as organized crime:
Imagine Tony Soprano speaking to a skeptical scientist: You’re not getting peer reviewed. End of story. That’s effectively what was happening. Imagine Al Capone: Liquor is my territory. I’ll not allow you to horn in on my territory. Substitute climate science for liquor, and that’s effectively what was happening.
Mr. Frank,
Any ideas on how to counteract such pressures in academia, plus how to reverse that trend?
I’m assuming academia didn’t start out so leftist to begin with….
This guy read all the emails, and found out it been big-busines behind it all the whole time. Well written and spelled out article.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/28/the-conspiracy-of-the-centuries-reader-post/
Huxley,
Ouch! Gavin may be a cynical self-serving, deluded climate scientist, but that would sting even a total narcissist. Way to go! By the way, your idea of writing your elected officials is spot on. This is what has to happen. Millions of citizens demanding that the process be opened up and all climate legislation tabled until there is real evidence thart action is necessary.
Perfected Democrat,
I read Spencer’s book shortly after it was written. It is a tour de force of the anti-AGW arguments. He and Dr. John Christy have been asking the inconvenient questions since 2000. In spite of their impeccable credentials, they have been marginalized and vilified by the MSM and the Hockey Team. That book is a must for anyone who wants to understand the science expressed at the layman’s level.
Tatter:
Please explain why an increase in atmos. CO2 must lead to a decline in other gases (your plural). I take it you mean something more than a modest decline in O2 due to C oxidation.
I’ve been wondering for quite a while about how I missed the debate over AGW, which Gore has long been insisting is over. If anyone here saw or heard or read a transcript of the debate, what did you think?
One thing this shows is that the transition from a poorly funded pure science effort to a hugely expanded, regulatory science regime was not accomplished.
This shows in the poor data management etc. If this were a drug or device, the workload for paperwork would expand to where it would dwarf the science. But unlike drugs or devices, failures would not be on the short term and thus politically risky to the IPCC, so they did not care.
Read -Climategate: Caught Green-Handed by Lord Monckton at the SPPI website. It puts this and other scandals in total and sad context.
ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media’s Job
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job
“It hadn’t occurred to me that this cold-blooded cynicism was present so close to me.”
Ouch.
Encountering such attitudes was a part of the slow process by which I came to conclude that leftism was inherently corrupt and corrupting. I wonder how often this is an important factor in people’s abandonment of the left.
Scottie and Mr. Frank,
the alternative is to believe that talent for certain fields — education, most entertainment, the arts — rests only with a certain side of the political spectrum. I’ve heard it said before, and attempts at defending just that. I don’t believe it. You see, I’m the sticking-out nail in my field — or would be if my politics were known. And no one accuses me of lack of talent. It’s just that if my politics were known I’d be instantly and permanently blacklisted. I could give you a list of names of people who were and who before that were acclaimed. Also, frankly, it makes no sense. Talent for arts and education was never the repository of the left alone if you look at history. So, is there some virus that killed artistic talent in right-leaning people in the mid fifties? Or is it all rigging and pushing out those who don’t agree?
Speaking of Hide the Decline, look how the audience for books and movies has fallen. Look at the swamp education has become. Pay no attention to the excuse that it’s the technology. It’s the lack of talent or anything new to say.
Smokin’ hot letter, huxley. Well done.
“Please explain why an increase in atmos. CO2 must lead to a decline in other gases (your plural). I take it you mean something more than a modest decline in O2 due to C oxidation.”
I didn’t say an increase in atmospheric CO2, I said an increase in the CO2 content. The proportion of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased by about 250 parts per million worldwide. Since the other million parts represent a constant ratio, there is not only 250 ppm more CO2, but also 250 ppm less of the other gases that make up the air we breathe, which as it turns out is nearly entirely from the O2 content. O2 has dropped by about 200 ppm in today’s atmospheric mixture, compared to what it was in 1950, though it’s still well over 200k ppm.
A tiny amount you would think, but when you consider that historically the atmosphere’s CO2 content was in the 150 ppm range, it is worrisome. I can actually see why the environmentalist community is in full-bore Chicken Little mode about the fact that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has more than doubled in the last 50 years, but the political fallout from skewing the data in order to produce a result intended to cause panic (and, as the scientists no doubt hoped, international action) will make it impossible to take any effective action now that the skewing has been discovered, even if it does turn out that the atmosphere’s CO2 content is approaching a dangerous level, possibly even accelerating in one of the feedback cycles the AGW crowd keeps banging on about.
In short, let’s just hope the CO2 content isn’t going to keep increasing at an accelerating rate… because if it is, we’re simply not going to stop it until it’s increasing too quickly for us to even slow it down, and the CRU’s malfeasance will be more to blame for it than the general population’s ignorance.
Tatterdemalian,
It doesn’t matter if CO2 is increasing, or even accelerating. What you fail to realize is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic. By the time CO2 reaches 250 ppm its “job is done”. It contributes about 1.5 oC by that point. Increasing to, say, 800 ppm will result only in about .25 oC further increase. This one simple fact should be enough to destroy the AGW hypothesis. What the AGW’ers then claim is that the CO2 will force a postive feedback in water vapor. This is where their whole hypothesis really falls apart as this feedback is not observed, especially in the middle atmosphere.
I have to admit that I find myself uncertain about the ultimate issue of AGW because I am not well versed in the science surrounding that issue. I found the debate going on in the comments section of some of these posts very interesting. And of course, I find the whole Climategate matter appalling and a black mark against those purporting to support AGW.
Heres an excellent link I found in one of the comments on another site (I lost the name of the commenter, although kudos to that person for this). Its a detailed explanation of “The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming,” provided with pictures and illustrations (for people like me) by none other than Michael Crichton himself. It was a presentation giver before the National Press Club. The URL is here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
“What you fail to realize is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic.”
I don’t fail to realize that, in fact the entire point of my post is that, even though CO2 is not resulting in observable global warming, it has nonetheless more than doubled in proportion, and it would be too hasty to simply dismiss the possibility that it won’t have any effect at all. The propoganda from the CRU means that any inquiry into potential effects, both reasonable and unreasonable, will all now be labeled “unreasonable” thanks to the scientific community staking their entire reputation on a political lie in an effort to mobilize the world before it’s too late, without even stopping to determine when “too late” could actually be, or even if there is such a thing as “too late.”
The science is no more settled than it has ever been, but I can say that it will probably never be settled now because everyone on both sides of the debate are more intent on using it as a political weapon rather than an investigative tool.
I wasn’t sure if I should add this, but since I dont feel myself to be sufficiently versed in the science surrounding the AGW debate, heres an article presenting the argument in favor of the existence of AGW . I’ll leave it up to anyone else more scientific minded than me to tear into it. As I posted before, Michael Chrichton makes a good opposing case.
Oblio: Thanks!
J.L.: And here’s an an excellent WSJ op-ed from Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the most repectable of AGW skeptics.
I’m optimistic that AGW has suffered a real flat tire with Climategate. Although AGW still has the majority opinion in science and the MSM and among liberals, the onus remains theirs to persuade citizens that “the science is settled” and it’s time to restructure the world economy and hit taxpayers for another 10% or more of their income.
That’s a hard sell. As a WSJ noted, “The public has every reason to ask why [AGW advocates] felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.”
…the fact that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has more than doubled in the last 50 years,
Tatterdemalian: You keep saying that, but it isn’t true. CO2 has increased 30-40% since 1950.
See the “The Keeling Curve.”
You are probably thinking of the claim made by AGW advocates that CO2 will have doubled sometime this century, which at present rates is true enough, but it isn’t yet.
Before becoming too alarmed about that, keep in mind that CO2 was 20x higher than it is now ~400 million years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png.
“Tatterdemalian: You keep saying that, but it isn’t true. CO2 has increased 30-40% since 1950.”
Well, I wasn’t around to measure the CO2 content myself in 1950, but I do have several back issues of scientific journals dating from that time period that mention the average CO2 content of the atmosphere as being about 150 ppm, and since this was before the makeup of the atmosphere became so highly politicized, I see no reason to doubt them. Keeling’s numbers were measured on the slopes of an active volcano (according to Wikipedia, Mauna Loa is not only an active volcano but also the world’s largest shield volcano, which directly contradicts your source claiming it’s an inactive volcano), so the concentration would probably be quite a bit higher than elsewhere (as was probably intended, it’s easier to measure larger numbers for the purpose of a scientific study). The technology to measure atmospheric CO2 relative to the other gases has been around for a long time, and in the years since I started measuring it myself (back when the AGW scare was tuning into obvious political propaganda) it’s gone from a yearly average of 350 ppm to 400 ppm.
I haven’t maintained any particularly strict scientific standards (relying only on a single electronic CO2 sensor), this being more a hobby than an actual scientific investigation. But the measurements still worry me, and scientists with better monitoring equipment seem to be terrified of the change to the point where they’re throwing caution to the winds and their hats into the ring of politics, with all too predictable effects. Maybe they are worrying about only a 30% increase instead of a 150% one; nothing would surprise me after Climategate.
As for the 400 million years ago thing, I don’t think there were any humans alive back then, and it probably wouldn’t take too long for humans to die out if we went back to those conditions now.
“I haven’t maintained any particularly strict scientific standards (relying only on a single electronic CO2 sensor), this being more a hobby than an actual scientific investigation. But the measurements still worry me,”
But my point is ‘why are you worrying?’ After 250 ppm it contributes zilch to the temperature. What it really does at those higher concentrations is stimulate faster plant growth. Let’s see: warmer earth, increased food production, less energy used for heating (the top energy use domestically; see the DoE energyinfo web site). What’s wrong with this picture?
“But my point is ‘why are you worrying?’ After 250 ppm it contributes zilch to the temperature.”
I’m not worried about its effect on temperature. I’m just worried about the fact that the concentration keeps increasing, apparently unchecked by the plants that are supposed to absorb it. At least for now, that is, perhaps we will end up with deserts turning into forests instead of environmental disasters.
I only worry because we don’t know what the effect will be, and probably never will, because any investigation will be inevitably poisoned by politics. Call me a coward if you like, but fear of the unknown is a survival instinct I’m not willing to abandon.
Tatterdemalian: I defy you to find a cite for a CO2 of 150 ppm in the past two centuries or even past two millenia.
Here’s an AGW quote:
There has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in 1998, mainly due to human activities during and after the industrial revolution, which began in 1850.
Personally I am persuaded that some of the current warming is AGW. I don’t want us to burn fossil fuels will-nilly until CO2 is 5-10x greater, because I’d rather avoid the pollution and save fossil fuels for other uses.
However, I am not persuaded that the warming we will see this century, even by IPCC standards, is going to be so
Tatterdemalian: I defy you to find a cite for a CO2 of 150 ppm in the past two centuries or even past two millenia.
Here’s an AGW quote:
There has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in 1998, mainly due to human activities during and after the industrial revolution, which began in 1850.
Personally I am persuaded that some of the current warming is AGW. I don’t want us to burn fossil fuels will-nilly until CO2 is 5-10x greater, because I’d rather avoid the pollution and save fossil fuels for other uses.
However, I am not persuaded that the warming we will see this century, even by IPCC standards, is going to be so ruinous that we have to launch the largest and most expensive project in human history to shave a degree or two off this warming.
Ultimately we will move to better energy sources — nuclear and solar — and this discussion of CO2 will make as much sense as those forecasting in 1900 that New Yorkers would be up to their necks in horse manure by 2000.
Huxley said, “However, I am not persuaded that the warming we will see this century, even by IPCC standards, is going to be so ruinous that we have to launch the largest and most expensive project in human history to shave a degree or two off this warming.”
Exactly! CO2 may be causing some degree of warming, but not a disastrous amount. On the other hand, for some years now I have been more worried about “Peak Oil” than about AGW.
The modern world floats on a sea of reasonably priced, easily available energy. Our needs are based on power (gasoline, diesel) for transportation, electricity for lighting/communications/heating, and sources of heat (natural gas, propane, electricity, geothermal) to heat our buildings. It’s obvious that most of these uses are hugely dependent on fossil fuels. Tghe problem is that fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. When we reach Peak Oil they will become harder and harder to find and there will be less and less supply. It is for that reason that moving toward renewables and everlasting sources of energy is a necessity if we hope to maintain our standard of living over the long haul. No one knows when we will reach Peak Oil. When oil hit $140/barrel many were trumpeting that Peak Oil was here. And they may be right. The problem is we will only recognize Peak Oil long after we have passed that point. One thing we do know is that there are many new supplies of oil left untouched here in the U.S. and off our shores because the environmental movement has convinced enough in Congress that drilling for oil is harmful to the environment. That argument holds up only as long as oil is not too scarce. When oil becomes scarce and costly, these sources will be tapped. So it is only a matter of when, not if.
We are in an energy bind. We are dependent on foreign sources for up to 60% of our oil. We are also sending billions of dollars overseas to pay for that oil. If we would drill and utilize the sources we have right here it would help our balance of payments problem. In addition, it would create jobs, good paying jobs, that are needed right now.
We must continue to cut the amount of gasoline we burn by driving fuel efficient (hybrids/high MPG diesels) vehicles. We must continue to research new fuels (bio-fuels, hydrogen, all electric) for transportation, but not to cut CO2 – to prepare for Peak Oil. For electricity production we need to get started building nuclear plants – not to cut CO2 but to prepare for Peak Oil.
We must learn to design and builld more efficient buildings that can be heated with a combination of solar heat and geothermal heat pumps. Once again, not to cut CO2, but to prepare for Peak Oil.
Those are just two ways we can prepare for the future. We must leave no stone unturned in exploring renewable/everlasting energy sources that will provide cheap, reliable energy to maintain our living standards.
All these things can and should be done in a way that increases our economic well being and in a measured and reasonable transition that could take 50 to 100 years. If we do these things, when Peak Oil becomes apparent, we will be well ahead of the cost curve and in a position to sell our technology to other nations so they can free themselves from dependence on fossil fuels also.
Yes, we must find new and long lasting sources of energy. But not because of AGW. Because it prepares us for the eventual depletion and scarcity of fossil fuel supplies. There is no immediate catastrophe as the Warmers would have you believe, but we do need to begin the long term transition to new energy sources while using those oil and gas sources we have in our own back yard to help us economically during the transition.
It doesn’t matter if CO2 is increasing, or even accelerating. What you fail to realize is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic. By the time CO2 reaches 250 ppm its “job is done”.
Physicsguy, to make the point to the non-technical, I put it this way: “Suppose you use aluminum foil to block light from a window. Does it get any darker if you use two sheets of aluminum foil?”
While not the best analogy in the world (in referring to reflection rather than absorptio), it does put the point across in a compelling, evocative way, and moves the the non-technically inclined person off of the instinctive expectation of linearity.
you guys remind me of when i went to a barbeque which was full of intelligentsia. a fire started, and i watched as they ran for the fire extinquisher, and had discussions, and such over how to interpret the instructions.
the point isnt the science, the point is how readiliy we are to give up our freedoms over an unsettled position (you guys still showing that even when they cheat for more than a decade, and have mentioned the un agreements, and such for global government, your still arguing ppm).
its like watching the dilbert cartoon where dilbert uses a metaphore to help describe the issue, and after doing so, the pointy haired boss can only focus on the metaphor.
you guys dont realize that a whole lot of the points your chawing are no longer valid in that a lot of them come to the same poisoned root.
its like reading the anthro stuff coming out now and how it doesnt even stop to note arty… arty changes everything… so does mans life in the sea, (which may have helped make arty).
and JJ, the point your making depends on whether oil and such are from fossils a thing that is becoming less and less likely.
they are finding oil deeper and deeper and it is starting to look like the fossil theory of oil and fuels is not going to hold up.
most dont realize that it is also a hypothesis.
it was never settled but just blindly accepted, and so peak oil is blindly accepted. peak oil has enabled periods of scarcity where the same material is many times higher in cost and costs do not return after the dip.
there is A LOT of these false things floating around, each a testiment to the same kind of science that we are finding out here with AGW.
but unlike this incident, they were never revealed, or revealed so far in advance of their work, there is nothing that can be done to remove it. like kinsey, meade, and a few others… which are now imbedded in policy and law, regardless of their basis now known to be a farce.
sadly i went hiking into the jungle in indonesia and rather than see lots of jungle, i saw that they were cutting it all down to grow corn for alcohol. until then, they had left that land alone. thousands upon thousands of acres are now gone.
the real issue with oil and such is that there is too much power wrapped up with it. that they will NOT let nuclear take its place and thats because they are trying to hold us back so other countries can catch up. which is not a valid way to go, but that is a talk for another millineum.
if energy was a lot cheaper, the economics of our society changes, and lots of things that are completely not thinkable become doable.
for instance, farming can happen in 50 story buildings… if energy was cheap..
if energy was cheap, wasting it to make fuel wouldnt be a problem… but since its not, we are stuck with oil no matter what. period.
and dont get me started on the fact that we have a freaking solar system with planets of raw material to screw with… a sun for disposal of waste.
if energy was cheap, we could dig up garbage dumps and send the crap to the sun…
just ask another physicist what becomes possible.
but, the issue is power and control and those things dont lead to their having that. they would ahve to accept the time they live in is not the time they wish to be in… and that they are stuck flowing with everyone… and that anything else results in all manner of destructive ills from genetic, to anti life…
it may be that there is no intelligent life in the universe because an intelligence that can live with itself once it discovers itself has yet to be made.
we ALMOST had it, but lost it to the more numerable intelligence that has to self diddle, and so destroy the very progress that brought it to the point of such destructive behavior.
we have only been a society for 10k years… we have only been a modern connected one for less than 300…
and they think they can improve us and the future?
and do so with a 120 year old unchanged doctrine that requires human servitude.
The Climate Scandal Has Diverted Attention From the Climate Scandal
It’s NOT The CO2 Stupid!
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17438
[the stupid phrase is on the page, i didnt write it]
Several scientists have known for years the science was wrong and the CRU with a few others were doing things beyond normal scientific techniques to mislead the public. We couldn’t compete with the deliberate media misinformation, personal attacks and frightening orchestration disclosed in the hacked emails. Now we have the weapon but it is an atomic bomb ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians.
The key was CO2 and why it received so much attention? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a miniscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it’s the sole focus of all climate and energy policy when it doesn’t cause global warming or climate change. In fact, in every record of any duration for any period in the earth’s history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. This is the complete opposite of the fundamental assumption made in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The only place where CO2 causes temperature increase is in the doctored computer models of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
so what is being discussed above, is not meaningful at all… (author tim ball is a climatologist). the science NEVER made sense in any other way than the logic behind vampires and werewolves makes sense!!!! we can invent systems that seem to make sense to us, but if we have the wrong data to consider, then we will just spin our wheels with fake stuff and ignore the end to which the lie was given!
and look what has happened, they suckered the smarties again.
They’ve moved the goalposts again as they did when global warming became climate change and carbon credits became cap and trade. The focus is Climategate when it should be how even excluding rigged data the science is wrong.
Scientists involved in the ‘climategate’ scandal have successfully diverted attention from the real issue with their denials. The mainstream media whose silence is either deafening or defensive have enabled them.
What’s The Motive?
The political stream was the pursuit of Maurice Strong and all those descendants of the Club of Rome including President Obama who want one world government with total control over everybody. That goal has not changed. The 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
H. L. Mencken’s comment that, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” is validated.
so still think that this like everything else is just bounded by what you see, and others are not playing the GREAT GAME?
artfldgr,
I know what you are saying about the conferences and the Cub of Rome. In fact I linked to another of these 70s lefty conferences here;
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
It is plain to see that the left is constantly looking for issues that they can use to control political situations and power to enable their agenda of an egalitarian utopia. And they do meet and feed off one another. If there’ a master plan/grand conspiracy lo
Drat! hit the comment button by mistake. What I was typing was:
If there’s a master plan/conspiracy it is hard to see. Too much of what they do is out in the open and a matter of record. Anyone weho’s paying attention can see what they want to achieve. If the MSM weren’t on their side and running their propaganda on most issues they could not accomplish what they do. Fortunately, the MSM is a shrinking power base for them. They are having their way with a democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President. IMO, that is going to end in 2010.
Artfldgr said:
“In fact, in every record of any duration for any period in the earth’s history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.”
Ahem…I’ve already known about this, but anyone wanna consider what happens AFTER this process?
Consider the following:
Earth warms.
CO2 levels then rise.
What happens next……?
It would strike me that it’s easier to predict what the planet’s climate is going to be like just by noting what happened in the past rather than relying upon computer models.
Hello There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. This
is an extremely neatly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of
your helpful info. Thanks for the post. I will definitely return.