Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

[countezero]

My issue is with the tone of the coverage, which borders on worshipful. The poetry there is awful, and were it written by anyone else about any other topic, it would be described as such. The story also begins with what I consider to be a lie. Al Gore has not been championing climate change for 30 years.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Al Gore is out for Al gore if he was truly environmental he would stop flying all over the place and then driving to the meeting he would Sail and walk there would be nothing more environmental then using a wooden Sail boat to cross the ocean and then to walk from town to town talking about the climate. Until he as well as all the other tree huggers start to do that then and only then will I ever conceder what they are saying until then they are Hippocrates and environmental bullies.

 

[ElectricFetus]

My issue is with the tone of the coverage, which borders on worshipful. The poetry there is awful, and were it written by anyone else about any other topic, it would be described as such. The story also begins with what I consider to be a lie. Al Gore has not been championing climate change for 30 years.

I can tell you personally I don't give a fuck about Al Gore, I don't care about poetry about or by him, I don't care about his biography. I still believe in the evidence though and I don't care if Al Gore agrees with me or not.

 

[countezero]

That's fine, but the Media pushes this person on us, and part of the dubiousness people associate with the claims you mention comes precisely from this kind of coverage. And when you marry that to absent data and the apparent collusion in the email, reasonable people can begin to wonder.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

If Al Gore said the sky was blue I guess you would mock him as a lier?

No, but if ALGORE said the sky was green, and man caused it, the News would take it as gospel truth.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No, but if ALGORE said the sky was green, and man caused it, the News would take it as gospel truth.

Even if people listen to him like some kind of nerdy hippy pope, what that have to do with reality? The sky is blue, fuck him, the earth is warming with our green house gas emissions being the primary contributing factor, fuck you. It does not matter who says it, it does not make it untrue (or true) only the physical evidence speaks for it self.

Really if you want to argue it would be best to argue from the position that global warming is not that bad nor reversible at this point (without the use of geoengineering, which the treehuggers would hate).

So we would lose a lot of coast line and many cities would need to be modified, so what, I think water way cities would be cool. So several 3rd world countries would go underwater, it would be slow enough for those people to move out over the generations. So food production maybe hampered (and that is a maybe) technology will hopefully keep production efficient enough to feed everyone, heck as it the thing causing most people to starve is improper distribution. The morbidly obese Americans will certainly be able to supply their food needs (not wants) for some time, even if their deserts grow much larger. Certainly global warming does not mean the end of the world as some treehuggers paint it

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No until you tell me what relevance it has to this thread.



Another irrelevant question, tell me what length of temperature measurements have to do with the evidence of this argument:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

None of this is irrelevent to the thread.

What is the actual percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere?

 

[ElectricFetus]

None of this is irrelevent to the thread.

Then explain how it is.

What is the actual percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere?

Does it matter, if I spit in your water does it matter what percentage of your water is spit? Does it matter what percentage of that spit great then zero is rhinovirus? CO2 percentage out of a total number is irrelevant as its effects are even at its existing percentage well noted in the evidence provided.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Then explain how it is.



Does it matter, if I spit in your water does it matter what percentage of your water is spit? Does it matter what percentage of that spit great then zero is rhinovirus? CO2 percentage out of a total number is irrelevant as its effects are even at its existing percentage well noted in the evidence provided.

Dependes on how much water you spit or piss in, if it is the pacific ocean just how much do you effect the ocean>

 

[ElectricFetus]

Dependes on how much water you spit or piss in, if it is the pacific ocean just how much do you affect the ocean>

So if I gave you a 48 gallon drum and I spit in it you would drink from it? If there were 10 rhinovirus particles in the amount you drank your still going to get sick, does not matter if it was 1 gallon or 48.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

So if I gave you a 48 gallon drum and I spit in it you would drink from it? If there were 10 rhinovirus particles in the amount you drank your still going to get sick, does not matter if it was 1 gallon or 48.

And how does that apply to the religion of global warming?

Again, You are thinking on a scale that is way to small, again, if you spit in the ocean what effect would you have?

 

[ElectricFetus]

And how does that apply to the religion of global warming?

Don't know, you were asking questions of no relevance, I answered one. And certainly global warming is not a religion, at least not to me, it is a scientific fact.

[/B]Again, You are thinking on a scale that is way to small, again, if you spit in the ocean what effect would you have?

Just as you asked what does that have to do with global warming? If I spit say .01% the total volume of the ocean in water into the ocean yes there would be an global effect, saline would drop slightly, sea level would rise a meter or so, god knows what else. Just as increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by .01% will and is having global consequences.

 

[GeoffP]

This news story of the bogus global warming science & data is FAR more significant than Tiger Woods;
heck, even if Tiger Woods announced he was raped by aliens...... insignificant compared to this.

You lie, you lying liar. Why do you lie so much?

 

[countezero]

Even if people listen to him like some kind of nerdy hippy pope, what that have to do with reality? The sky is blue, fuck him, the earth is warming with our green house gas emissions being the primary contributing factor, fuck you. It does not matter who says it, it does not make it untrue (or true) only the physical evidence speaks for it self.

Really if you want to argue it would be best to argue from the position that global warming is not that bad nor reversible at this point (without the use of geoengineering, which the treehuggers would hate).

So we would lose a lot of coast line and many cities would need to be modified, so what, I think water way cities would be cool. So several 3rd world countries would go underwater, it would be slow enough for those people to move out over the generations. So food production maybe hampered (and that is a maybe) technology will hopefully keep production efficient enough to feed everyone, heck as it the thing causing most people to starve is improper distribution. The morbidly obese Americans will certainly be able to supply their food needs (not wants) for some time, even if their deserts grow much larger. Certainly global warming does not mean the end of the world as some treehuggers paint it

But the issue is overall believability of the problem. I do not deny there is evidence the earth is warming, but what is more important, is whether recent temperature spikes are part of a pattern and whether that pattern can be attributed to CO2.

Given the type of Media coverage I have documented, we have to be wary of it. Additionally, you have the lack of data and apparent collusion on the part of the men whose data was, per my limited understanding, critical in the argument that the recent spikes are part of a pattern that can be traced directly to CO2. You also have the "Global Cooling" phenomena which was pushed in the 70s, which I also documented in this thread, to add to the confusion.

 

[ElectricFetus]

But the issue is overall believability of the problem. I do not deny there is evidence the earth is warming, but what is more important, is whether recent temperature spikes are part of a pattern and whether that pattern can be attributed to CO2.

yes that pattern can be attributed to CO2, read that link.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Given the type of Media coverage I have documented, we have to be wary of it. Additionally, you have the lack of data and apparent collusion on the part of the men whose data was, per my limited understanding, critical in the argument that the recent spikes are part of a pattern that can be traced directly to CO2.

No, none of their data is necessary or even used to prove the link between CO2 and global warming. Again in the link I cited none of the suspected data is used or even mentioned.

You also have the "Global Cooling" phenomena which was pushed in the 70s, which I also documented in this thread, to add to the confusion.

Global cooling never had significant scientific support. At best is was a temporary effect cause by aerosol emissions, but when we cut down on aerosol pollution, we no longer produce a counter agent to green house gases, this is why I advocate geoengineering were we take those sulfates produced and pump them high into the stratosphere, stopping and reverse global warming in less than 5 years, without the acid rain, for a reasonable price.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Don't know, you were asking questions of no relevance, I answered one. And certainly global warming is not a religion, at least not to me, it is a scientific fact.

A scientific fact? really? no it is a scam, and always has been.

Just as you asked what does that have to do with global warming? If I spit say .01% the total volume of the ocean in water into the ocean yes there would be an global effect, saline would drop slightly, sea level would rise a meter or so, god knows what else. Just as increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by .01% will and is having global consequences.

That is not what I ask?

Now how much Co2 is there in the atmosphere?

How much Co2 ia sequestered in carbon sinks?

And exactly how much of it is man made?

No one seems to be able to answer those questions, and with out knowing how can the claim be made that warming is caused by Man, what I have found shows that Co2 rises follow the warming they do not precede the warming.

When sun spot activity is high the temperatures on earth rise, and when as now the sun spot activity is none existent the temperatures fall, climate change is a on going cycle, and until we can control the sun and it's cycles, and the Milankovitch Cycles, we have no possibility of effecting the earth's climate.

The amount of plant growth is governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the growth plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate falls when atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and plants provide food for animal life, including humans, CO2 is the base for the food chain for all life forms on Earth.

The present level of CO2 is extremely low by historical standards. If CO2 is significantly reduced, that slower plant growth which will affect the world food supplies while having no effect on global warming.

The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is stuff that makes life possible on our planet.

 

[ElectricFetus]

A scientific fact? really? no it is a scam, and always has been.

Blatant denialism that does not counter the evidence.

That is not what I ask?

Now how much Co2 is there in the atmosphere?

How much Co2 ia sequestered in carbon sinks?

And exactly how much of it is man made?

Many of those questions are answered in the link I keep citing.

What I have found shows that Co2 rises follow the warming they do not precede the warming.

Would like to see your evidence for this.

When sun spot activity is high the temperatures on earth rise, and when as now the sun spot activity is none existent the temperatures fall, climate change is a on going cycle, and until we can control the sun and it's cycles, and the Milankovitch Cycles, we have no possibility of effecting the earth's climate.

Again the evidence show these effects are not nearly as bad as greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of plant growth is governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the growth plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate falls when atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Plant growth is affected by many factor besides CO2, the growth increase could easily be countered by decrease in rain fall for example.

Carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and plants provide food for animal life, including humans, CO2 is the base for the food chain for all life forms on Earth.

and part of a net cycle with no increase or decrease when all things are working right.

The present level of CO2 is extremely low by historical standards. If CO2 is significantly reduced, that slower plant growth which will affect the world food supplies while having no effect on global warming.

reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels is not going to reduce plant growth significantly.

 

[noodler]

I note that BR appears to believe that there's a carbon cycle 'controlled' by plant growth.

Perhaps he hasn't studied the real carbon cycle which is geochemical - plant and animal life, i.e. the biosphere has an uncharacterized effect, there is uncertainty as to how much the biological cycles affect the geochemical one which is by far the dominant CO2 recycler. It takes a lot longer to act than the biological one, but the action is much larger.

There is another aspect of increased CO2 he has omitted: plants live at different latitudes and have evolved to prefer ambient conditions there. Alter CO2 and warm things up, plants start to wilt and die. Eventually drought and deforestation ensue, so boreal forests don't respond well to increases in CO2 and temperature, no-siree.

 

[visceral_instinct]

and hackers are SOOO trustworthy right? even IF it does show what you suggest mad what makes you think the emails ect wernt tamped with?

Further more resurch has been releaced very recently which suggests the IGPCC was to concervitive, that the artic will be ice free by 2030 and that sea levels have already risen 5cms

further more the first ever Nov heat wave has hit melbourne and adelade, unprecedented fire seasons are happerning NOW and the murry river is bone dry.

Look at it this way, we stop using carbon and move to renuable energy and it turns out not to be as bad as we thought and what happens? Nothing bad and the planet is better off.

If we do nothing and they turn out to be right then humanity will PROBABLY be one of the species to go extint through stavation, war ect.

YAY lets go with your view Honestly i have to wonder what you have at stake if we do take action? of course your age may come into it, ie YOU wont have to deal with it it but i wonder what you say to your kids and grandkids (if you have them) when you look at them because its THEM you are condeming if your wrong.

Lastly as one of the scientists from the university of NSWs and who worked on this new report said "if the nay sayers are right then why have everyone of them refused to have there work peer reviewed?"

I was gonna type a message of my own, but Asguard said it better than me.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I note that BR appears to believe that there's a carbon cycle 'controlled' by plant growth.

Perhaps he hasn't studied the real carbon cycle which is geochemical - plant and animal life, i.e. the biosphere has an uncharacterized effect, there is uncertainty as to how much the biological cycles affect the geochemical one which is by far the dominant CO2 recycler. It takes a lot longer to act than the biological one, but the action is much larger.

There is another aspect of increased CO2 he has omitted: plants live at different latitudes and have evolved to prefer ambient conditions there. Alter CO2 and warm things up, plants start to wilt and die. Eventually drought and deforestation ensue, so boreal forests don't respond well to increases in CO2 and temperature, no-siree.

What happens if you remove all Co2 from the environment?