Everybody's favorite hoax is back!

[rufus]

And just in time for the holidays.

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
By James Delingpole November 22nd, 2011

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

More...

Read More

 

[Chee-to]

Just remember we have several "climate experts" right on this board, that will venomously disagree .

 

[slingshot1943]

It takes a huge ego to believe you are changing the climate.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

im no expert but I find it very funny that other non experts think, know or believe so strongly that this could in no way be a possible reason on things happening on our globe. have any of you been to parts of alaska and looked at the same glaciers that your grandfather looked and took a picture of and noticed a huge difference, knowing it will not return to what it once was unless we go into another ice age meaning we all die. I just look at things that I know can be proven, the amount of industrial building and emitions being put into our air are far greater than in the previous century and the amount of cars used in the world today. As much as I don't like regulations being made that alter what I may or may not be able to do in the future, im not going to just grumble and say there is no way this could be somewhat happening.

 

[slingshot1943]

Doesn't it seem right that glaciers melt between ice ages?

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

i would agree, as does everbody, but when the last 10 years have been substantially more than any other decade, why is that, they have been there for ALOT of decades, so i guess we just figure it out when they are gone huh

 

[slingshot1943]

Seems to me I heard that the last decade was cooler than other recent decades.

 

[doubletap007]

how did the cavemen cause global warming during the ice age?cooking too much dinosaur meat over a camp fire?
driving hummers and chevy suburbans?factories?co2 emmisions from dinosaur f@rts?
no it was a natural occurance.50 years of recycling was undone in 3 minutes during japans tsunami,all that debris is now floating aimlessly in the ocean.recycling companies have been caught taking all that product you recycle to the landfills and dumping it so
all your time playing with your garbage is wasted.
on the flip side of the coin.....
i have been a fisherman for 20 years and used to bring home 2 steelhead a day from the clackamas,in 1997 i landed 91 salmon and steelhead combined from many oregon rivers and bays and the last few years i am lucky to have 3 on my tag by the end of the year.
it may be over fishing,over population?who knows but something has changed.
in 1890 there were less than 1 billion people in the world,in 1962 when kennedy was the president there were 3 billion people worldwide
today we have reached 7 billion people.we drill millions of barrels of oil from the earth a day and dont expect it to have an impact on the harmonics of the earths balance?im by no means a "global warming"left wingnut but we are playing with disaster taking anything out of the earth at that rate....spin a basketball on your finger while slowly letting the air out of it and watch it wobble out of balance,so will the harmonics of the earth eventually,the intense heat from the earths core may like that oil cooling it?????
again im not in the global warming religion but common sense says if you really think about what we are doing you could explain the major earthquakes,flooding,melting ice caps etc.sea life is dying off and i think its not from up above but from deep in the earths core that we are warming due to over population and over drilling for oil and minerals...we just need to thin out the population again.
lets start with the liberals?

 

[Bigfoot]

Relax, there are much more pressing problems to worry about.

I read this scientist explain GW last week. Best, most balanced explanation that I've read. You can scroll down to check his bona fides.


<broken link removed>

"Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about."

By David Evans

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let's set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three &#8212; so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory &#8212; that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade &#8212; yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government &#8212; how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold &#8212; in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not worth doing much about.

Financial Post
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia's carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23."

 

[2506]

What ended the Little Ice Age?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm

 

[Grunwald]

Lets flash back to 5th grade science. ...........
What do plants breathe?
What do they exhale?

 

[rufus]

Lets flash back to 5th grade science. ...........
What do plants breathe?
What do they exhale?

Then to late 2009...
"Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant."

 

[trainsktg]

how did the cavemen cause global warming during the ice age?cooking too much dinosaur meat over a camp fire?
driving hummers and chevy suburbans?factories?co2 emmisions from dinosaur f@rts?
no it was a natural occurance.50 years of recycling was undone in 3 minutes during japans tsunami,all that debris is now floating aimlessly in the ocean.recycling companies have been caught taking all that product you recycle to the landfills and dumping it so
all your time playing with your garbage is wasted.
on the flip side of the coin.....
i have been a fisherman for 20 years and used to bring home 2 steelhead a day from the clackamas,in 1997 i landed 91 salmon and steelhead combined from many oregon rivers and bays and the last few years i am lucky to have 3 on my tag by the end of the year.
it may be over fishing,over population?who knows but something has changed.
in 1890 there were less than 1 billion people in the world,in 1962 when kennedy was the president there were 3 billion people worldwide
today we have reached 7 billion people.we drill millions of barrels of oil from the earth a day and dont expect it to have an impact on the harmonics of the earths balance?im by no means a "global warming"left wingnut but we are playing with disaster taking anything out of the earth at that rate....spin a basketball on your finger while slowly letting the air out of it and watch it wobble out of balance,so will the harmonics of the earth eventually,the intense heat from the earths core may like that oil cooling it?????
again im not in the global warming religion but common sense says if you really think about what we are doing you could explain the major earthquakes,flooding,melting ice caps etc.sea life is dying off and i think its not from up above but from deep in the earths core that we are warming due to over population and over drilling for oil and minerals...we just need to thin out the population again.
lets start with the liberals?

Some good points there.

I liken the current population explosion to a petri dish full of a sugar solution. Bacteria that feed on the sugar prosper and grow at an exponential rate until the sugar is suddenly gone and nearly the entire population dies. It is no coincidence that in approximately 100 years, the human population has grown from a rather steady 1 billion to 7 billion because of the prosperity derived from a rather bountiful energy source. 6 in 7 humans alive today owe their very existence to oil. Unless you are a believer in abiotic oil, then eventually, that 'sugar' will run out too. It will not be pretty when it happens. But, this is a different problem than the warming trend the climate alarmists would have us believe in.

Pollution is definitely of concern as well. Obviously, with lots of people, there will be lots of trash and debris, whether intentional or unintentional. We need to do all we can to eliminate as much as possible. Again, a valid concern, but not related to a warming climate in any appreciable way.

Regarding man-made global warming...there is absolutely no evidence that the current warming trend is anything other than a natural cycle. During the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1300 AD), grapes were grown in England and there was a thriving colony of folks on Greenland for longer than Eurpoeans have been in the Americas. Since grape growing extends only as far north as France these days, and Greenlanders most likely couldn't survive in the numbers that they do today without modern technology, then the only logical conclusion is that it was much warmer back then than even today.

'Peak oil' and pollution are definitely valid concerns...as above, so below...what happens in a lab's petri dish is in essence no different when implemented on a global scale. But anthropogenic global warming? I am quite unconvinced.

Keith

 

[Both Eyes Open]

Weathering Fights - Science: What's It Up To? - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

This shows just how manipulative those scientists can be with their "theories" and stuff! This is a must see for everyone!!!

 

[CharonPDX]

Simple choice. There are two possibilities, and two ways to act:

1. Man-made climate change is fake, and we act as if it is not. Result: nothing different happens.
2. Man-made climate change is fake, and we act as if it's real. Result: Even if we're not changing the climate, we're still reducing pollution in general.
3. Man-made climate change is real, and we act as if it's real. Result: We slow/stop/reverse climate change, preventing potentially cataclysmic climate changes that would severely impact crop-growing regions of the world and low-lying coastal areas.
4. Man-made climate change is real, and we act as if it is not. Result: We doom the climate, causing massive flooding in low-lying coastal areas, causing the "growable regions" to shift further away from the equator, causing massive shifts in political balance due to these shifts.

Of the four options, option 4 is the one I'd most like to avoid. Yes, if man-made climate change is *FAKE*, and we do nothing, nothing bad happens. But if it is REAL and we do nothing, massively bad things happen. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? There is enough evidence to basically prove (in climate science, there is no such thing as actually "proving" a long-term trend, but we have as close as we can get to it,) that the global average temperature is increasing. It *IS* proven that certain chemicals (including Carbon Dioxide and Methane) are "greenhouse gasses", and that increases in these cause an atmosphere to hold solar heat in. There is lots of evidence that the small amounts of these gasses that have been added to the atmosphere as a result of human activity have a strong correlation with the increases in global average temperature.

No, man-made climate change isn't "proven" any more than the idea of gravitational force is "proven". It doesn't mean that tomorrow you'll be able to jump and gravity won't pull you back down, though.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

Weathering Fights - Science: What's It Up To? - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

This shows just how manipulative those scientists can be with their "theories" and stuff! This is a must see for everyone!!!

lol, thats what science is -theories and predictions.

 

[Both Eyes Open]

lol, thats what science is -theories and predictions.

I just love that video... I should have put a "/sarcasm" on my post!

CharonPDX, Very well put!

 

[speelyei]

actually, my favorite hoax has been, and always will be... Gecko45.

 

[locobob]

It takes a huge ego to believe you are changing the climate.

I takes a huge degree of arrogance to continue a short term "business as usual" strategy when faced with potentially dire long term impacts.

 

[rufus]

Do you believers see any correlation between existing global warming governmental policies and the current U.S. economy? Is it possible many businesses outsourced jobs due to silly ideas like carbon credits and emission markets?