Climate Change <Start Playing Taps>

Wow, amazing..... Reminds me of a lot of people I've worked with over the years that will go to incredible lengths to keep a snowjob going and not get called on the carpet as a fraud or just plain wrong.

This doesn't give us all license to ignore the good things we've done with the environment, but it does let the wind out of the sails of the doomsayers a bit. Al Gore is an idiot, anyway, so I'd be first in line to shove a big lump of coal right up his a$$.

I think I'll turn up the Keystoker a few extra degrees tonight and sip a fine pour of Buffalo Trace bourbon in front of the blue ladies.

Chris

europachris wrote: so I'd be first in line to shove a big lump of coal right up his a$$.

I think I'll turn up the Keystoker a few extra degrees tonight and sip a fine pour of Buffalo Trace bourbon in front of the blue ladies.

Chris

I think that would be a mighty long line. Enjoy the bourbon...I think I'm going to have a Celebration Ale

How many people on this forum have been saying this is BULL S%*@ for years. I will celebrate by breaking out some bituminous and smoking out the neighborhood. Although the man who INVENTED Bigfoot came out and said the whole thing was a hoax there are still people who thing it is real.

ohh wow, global warming is a hoax I had no idea. god bless this hacker, he is a true american hero.

im sure this will get no coverage from the state run media.

Just so you don't draw the wrong conclusion. Global warming is real. It's unmistakable, weather data from many countries weather services around the world all show the same trend, warmer. What's in dispute is what's causing it. Is it a cause of human activity or just natural events that we have no control over? The apparent fraud is the manipulation of the science to support the theory that human activity is the primary cause of it. An even bigger leap is to believe that a change in human activity could reverse it.

In some areas of the world there will be serious changes to human activity if the warming trend continues, no matter what the cause.

Yes, Yanche that distinction should be made, the research in question here is in regards to Anthropogenic Global Warming or that it is caused by man instead of natural cycle of events that have occurred forever.

Funny how the left called us "wingnuts" for believing the truth!

yanche makes the most important point - impact -

**Broken Link(s) Removed**IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn't being political, it is being selfish.

Hoping for climate change so he can proved right? Selfish is understatement of the year.

How about a little reality check?

Lessee, in just the last, say, 150 years of the planet's history, we've
1. had a population explosion of humankind, generating unprecedented carbon emissions by our mere existence;
2. deforested vast areas of carbon-processing green plants to create habitat; and
3. burned zillions of tons of never-before-used subterranean carbon resources (coal, oil, gas) for our heat and to feed the machinery of the industrial revolution.

But I'm sure that any effect upon the earth's temperature is just a coincidence.

If all of that somehow is a hoax, it will be a very big story. OTOH, if this is another media stunt intended to slow down Copenhagen, it won't gain any traction, except with the Inhofe set.

We'll see.

The Canadian government commissioned a study to look at how much CO2 a forest might actually consume. The idea was to see how many carbon credits they could claim for all of that pristine forest land they have. What they found was that it was not as simple as they had thought. While the trees are in their prime they absorb lots of CO2 for photosynthesis but as they age and decay they then release much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere. So, forests do not actually consume CO2 but merely store it. Of course, once the forests are cleared, that storage is gone for good.

Answer to the reality check.
No it really hasn't had much affect. The earth is
a big place and we are but a pin prick. Our
ego lets us believe that WE have the power to
change things. Sorry.

tsb wrote:Answer to the reality check.
No it really hasn't had much affect. The earth is
a big place and we are but a pin *censored*. Our
ego lets us believe that WE have the power to
change things. Sorry.

This is true.
The Laki Iceland eruption in 1783 is a great example of this. It belched millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Millions probably died indirectly from the weather change it created. It was winter almost year round for three years and almost a decade to get back to normal. I saw it the history channel this morning, very interesting.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/lpi8924_30/Lone ... net-Images

Hard to say. Individually, we have no effect but in our billions perhaps we do. Much like ants in an ant-farm or drops of rain on a mountain top. Eventually, there is an effect. What I have always objected to was the assumption that all that CO2 was having the effect claimed. It can be proven the earth was much warmer than now at lower CO2 levels as well as also colder at higher CO2 levels. Ignoring evidence contrary to expectations is just poor science and there's been entirely too much of that lately.

Briefly, the point here is that the group of people (nicknamed the Team) at the organization (CRU - Climate Research Unit) that had their server “hacked” were feeding some very influential global organizations (IPPC) information that they said proved that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented.

To prove this was happening the Team had to develop another set of data to show that there were no previous periods like the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 AD) and that the 1930's, that were warmer than the current period.

Then came a group of people headed by Steve McIntyre that thought the data the Team presented did not look right. By reconstructing the data McIntyre disproved the Team's “proof” that the current global warming was unprecedented. However, McIntyre also wanted to prove this by analysis of the Team's original data. So the next step was to obtain the original data from the Team.

Since the Team's data were obtained using public funding by UK law it is available through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Numerous requests for the files were turned down by CRU. Finally on Nov 17, 2009 at 9.57 pm there occurred the first public notice of the “hacked” 63 MB CRU file entitled “FOIA.zip”
Within the zip file was this note:

“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

Note on the hack.
The feeling from the people that have been following this for many months is that this posting of the hacked files was an inside job by a whistle blower within CRU. Under UK law the whistle blower is protected from prosecution.