First and foremost — contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the email was sent in November of 1999 should have allayed any such confusion.
In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.
#30–Cursor==you do know what happens to your balls when you straddle a fence don’t you?????
Thats right. If you are neither pro nor con then you are quite right not to talk to either side. Instead, you should go get yourself some edumacation to get smart. Then, go test your opinions against the pro’s and con’s.
Over time, you will find that usually, people too dumb or uninformed to have an opinion aren’t really worth talking to.
#12–JimR==you raise an excellent point: how should we mere mortals, barely familiar and not experts at all in any given field, nonetheless form an effective/valid opinion on subjects that are relevant and impacting on our lives to which we all owe a fiduciary obligation of care to tend to for our kiddies?
On any “important” issue one will find “evidence” on all sides of the issue. Hanging one’s hat one one, or a group of such evidence is problematic. What to do?
I think taking “reasonable/affordable” steps to what appears to be consensus thinking is the most pragmatic response. Won’t always be right, but it will be reasonable, affordable and pragmatic.
Common sense does play some role. It would be “unusual” to take a given atmosphere and then pump trillion of tons of carbon into it and then claim “there will be no effect.” The evidence for no effect would have to be thoroughly convincing.
I don’t see that in this debate. Curse Me. ((Did Scott really do that??==hah, hah. The boy “cares.” Cracks me up.))
lets make a change..
INSTEAD of shipping our problems to other nations to MAKE pollution for OUR GOODS..
MAKE us responsible FOR the CRAP..
It will force metal and gold price DOWN..
WE have the ability to CLEAN the air, but its NOT PROFITABLE…
we can ACTUALLY reclaim many materials FROM the air.
This Climategate is a small drop in the ocean compared to the myths about viruses and HIV.
I don’t know who to trust on this one… the liberal alarmists or the conservative scumbags.
#35–Somebody==gee==what happens when you ignore an alarm that was correct vs what happens when you ignore a scumbag that was correct?
Weigh, balance==make your bet.
I don’t know which side of this issue is correct, but I am sure of the following:
1. “climate change” issue has been hi-jacked by people with agendas that have nothing to do with the environment.
2. Science is for the buying.
3. Both sides of the issue are on the take in one form or another.
#26 brm
Sure new sources are being discovered. I get that – my neighborhood is full of geologists, engineers, and petrophysicists. Finding oil and bringing it to market are two different things. For example, if the US exploits all their new sources of oil (drill baby drill) you’ll cover 20% of your energy trade deficit (assuming it’s brought online immediately).
So where are going to get the rest? Iran? South America? Africa? The US doesn’t want oil sands energy (both Rep and Dems) which makes up the vast majority of the world’s unproven (2P) reserves. The arctic? Offshore? All speculative and difficult still which means 20 years before they come online.
The US especially is being held hostage by foreign energy – plain and simple. Even with the energy boom of 2004-2008 new production barely kept up with old reserves drying up while world wide demand keeps growing. The peak year for oil discoveries was 1965 at about 65 billion barrels/year. 2006 it was about 10 billion barrels/year.
Yes, new oil is being found but it’ll be harder to find, come from difficult environments, and from political unstable areas. Is the US having fun spending trillions on securing the middle east? You’ll have to do that in South America, Africa, or Russia next. BTW, China wants that oil too and they have a lot more cash.
Or, the US can start innovating and changing now. Personally, I think the US can do that better than anyone and it’s the best option. And it’s profitable.
I went to the American ‘Thinker’ website and the first archived article I see is “In Defense of Sarah Palin”.
That tells me all I need to know about *that* website!
Next up- how to run your car on nothing but water. Honest- it’s for realz!
#32, bobbo… nicely said. I can’t disagree with your position, but also can’t ignore all the red flags. I just won’t get on a high speed train with wobbly wheels.
On the other hand, I live 1100 feet above sea level…
Maybe when Mann acknowledges his mistakes we can take him seriously when he comments on his tricks to hide the decline. He generally has stopped using PC analysis which was one problem with his first hockey stick. He also has stopped using bristlecones. He also has made his code available for his last few papers. So he is responding to the criticisms of Steve McIntyre, he just won’t acknowledge them. Now we need to see when he stops using Tiljander proxy upside down, so cold reads as warm and warm reads as cold. He has repeated the usage once, so it’s possible he just doesn’t understand his own computer programs.
#40–Jim==poorly said. The point of my post was exactly NOT TO IGNORE THE RED FLAGS.
What do you mean by not ignoring them? Ocean rise won’t get you at 1100 feet but climate change still will. Just slower.
You are too reasonable to argue with but you need a cup of coffee to drown out the cob webs.
Yes, I know, everyone is wrong about global warming being real except this guy who shows, positively, that it’s not really happening.
On the other hand, the vast predominance, if not complete 100% consensus knows it’s going on and we need to stop it.
Here’s just a small sample: The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.”
Someone’s bound to say their just politicians looking to make a buck but that just ain’t so. Real scientists, and not just these involved in the trumped up climategate, use different data and come to the same conclusion as above. It’s real dudes, get with it before you kill us all.
I want to hear Chermin explicitly agree with what this article claims: that 98% of all climate scientists in the world are involved in a “conspiracy.”
When Chermin admits this is what he actually believes, we’ll all have a much better evaluation of Dvorak Uncensored and what kind of site it is…
Interesting read….until I discovered that the “American Thinker” website and its’ writers are supporters of Intelligent Design. Their articles all seem bash the scientific community to the point that if a scientist says it, it must be wrong.
Now a serious question I would like to have climate change deniers explain to me.
The planet Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus. And yet, Venus with its high level of CO2 is far far hotter. If CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and temperature fluctuations can be blamed on Solar cycles, how come Venus is so much hotter than Mercury?
Inquiring minds what to know.
bobbo, we both have red flags. One major flag is that you and I are deemed guilty of a crime against humanity and we will pay hefty penalties… for heating my house with natural gas when the temperature drops below freezing 6 months of the year, and for just living in a modern country. The solution to excess CO2 will come from the biggest emitters…. that is if there’s any jobs left to pay for it. This is not just about whether or not man is affecting climate. You are risking having the economic rug pulled right out from under your feet.
Thorndike has written the only relevant post on this board.
These particular climate-change deniers are intelligent design advocates.
Um, now, what were you saying again, Cherman…?
Dvorak Uncensored. Joining forces with anti-evolutionists and science-deniers everywhere….
The ice caps are still melting. How do you explain that other than global warming?
Mark, during the ice cap met, the earth has been cooling for 10 years. How do you explain that? It’s why the discussion is not about GW any more, it’s about climate change.
“it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide.”
This is more right wing BS, cherry picking the data from one year to deny what almost all climate scientists have concluded: that global warming is real and accelerating. 1998 was a very hot year because of a very strong El Niño, Since the 1970s worldwide temperatures have increased about one third of one degree Fahrenheit. 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, and the 11th hottest on record. 2009 is looking like it will be the fifth hottest of all time.
This is from today’s Wall Street Journal, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News.
I’m going to have to agree with #45. CO2 has been linked to greenhouse warming effects. This is a scientific fact, but feel free to argue until you’re blue. If anything, it keeps uninformed people occupied.
I can see that the curving of the dendrochronological series in the report was an underhanded thing to do. I think that scientist should be investigated and asked to defend this work. While I think that series is misleading, the rest of them aren’t.
As with all treaties and summits before it, the world leaders don’t have to listen to the reports and suggestions that the Copenhagen conference will publish. The great thing for climate skeptics is that the result of these summits has never lead to any ratifying treaties. You’ll hear plenty of “this is the most important challenge facing contemporary humanity” and plenty of world leaders will get their picture taken showing their (alleged) support.
Pictures sure are great to look at, and treaties sure are nice to file away.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this;
skeptics: Don’t worry, nothing’s going to change from this conference. World leaders won’t bother adjusting their economic policies to the will of hippy-free-love-environmental-sandal-wearers. Gestures are the most they’ll give.
believers: Do worry. The science of climate change showed up too late in the game. Even if CO2 emissions stopped today, temperature will still increase due to a combination of thermal inertia and the slow climate response of CO2. By the time any ratified treaties come into play, global average temperatures will be well beyond the point of no return.
but rest assured, if we manage to ruin our climate, our way of life, and kill ourselves, Earth will still go on for several billion more years.
When Christianity was the common religion of America, truth was considered of paramount importance. Now that Humanism is the common religion, lies and hypocrasy are passe. And power is paramount.
Timuchin — you might want to look up “passe”…
Your vocabulary is commensurate with your sense of critical and historical thinking.