Global warming scam exposed!

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/

 

Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there.

 

Here's a bit more level-headed look into the leak:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...rd-nigel-lawson

Edited November 24, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Purkake]

 

Listen to the cat.

[kirottu]

 

Listen to the cat.

 

?

 

I think it

[Gfted1]

I think it

[Lare Kikkeli]

I read an analysis on the leaked emails from a non-right wing kook blog and according to them the emails don't really have anything world shattering in them. The so called cooking has been normal practises within the scientific community that taken out of context seem like fingering the data but really isn't and as such hasn't skewed the results (don't remember the details and I'm not a scientist, this is only what they said).

 

I'm sure the official committee will eventually come to the same conclusion.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Listen to the cat.

This is pretty important, there are trillions of dollars about to be spent on this nonsense, I don't know why you think it doesn't deserve a thread.

[Purkake]

OMG! Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

 

It's just another excuse for the anti-climate change people to jump around and wave their arms. If fossil fuels don't screw things up, they will still run out eventually.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OMG! Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

 

It's just another excuse for the anti-climate change people to jump around and wave their arms. If fossil fuels don't screw things up, they will still run out eventually.

Oh, OK, let's not discuss things you disagree with. Sorry for my impertinence. Edited November 24, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Purkake]

I'm sorry, do these leaked emails prove that climate change is a hoax?

 

My point about having to switch eventually stands and I'd switch sooner rather than later.

[Walsingham]

I read a short dicussion in the Daily Telegraph, which is a conservative paper, but has both pro and anti climate change columnists. In and of itself the story doesn't constitute a smoking gun, was their view.

 

I think people's allegiance on climate change has far less to do with climate change evidence and far more to do with them either being raging anti-governmenters or being secret anti-capitalists. Being neither I worry about more pressing issues like Afghanistan.

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Purkake

They prove that data is being cooked, dissent is suppressed, and normal scientific requirements, like releasing your data and methods are not being met.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Purkake]

I read a short dicussion in the Daily Telegraph, which is a conservative paper, but has both pro and anti climate change columnists. In and of itself the story doesn't constitute a smoking gun, was their view.

 

I think people's allegiance on climate change has far less to do with climate change evidence and far more to do with them either being raging anti-governmenters or being secret anti-capitalists. Being neither I worry about more pressing issues like Afghanistan.

Yeah, I guess the plan remains the same: we each vote according to our feelings on the issue in our respective countries.

 

@Purkake

They prove that data is being cooked, dissent is suppressed, and normal scientific requirements, like releasing your data and methods are not being met.

Doing that is obviously wrong, but reducing pollution etc. is still a positive thing, no?

Edited November 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Hurlshort]

While I'm not really in the whole green-peace camp, I'm also not losing sleep over companies have to shell out money to make more environmentally friendly products and factories. 100 years from now, do you think people are going to be complaining about pollution, or the money spent on preventing pollution?

[Walsingham]

1. The basic problem is that if climate change is correct then the only really realistic way to combat it is a world government. And the thought of that doesn't make me giddy with glad feelings.

 

2. Actually, reducing pollution is expensive, and the burden fall heavily on those nations which are still industrialising. Therefore it means prolonging their poverty. Which is a big deal if it's just so we can get in a flap at posh dinner parties.

 

3. Even for those nations which can adjust their pollution status, in the West, it still means spending vast sums of cash on projects which might otherwise go to education or health, or helping the third world, or space travel.

[Purkake]

There's also pretty obvious connection between the number of cars/factories/etc. and the amount of smog/etc that a city has, whether or not some scientists forged some numbers(which is really really bad and they should obviously lose their license/job for it.)

Edited November 24, 2009 by Purkake

[213374U]

My point about having to switch eventually stands and I'd switch sooner rather than later.

Sure, fine. Are you going to switch to tofu burgers too? Because, you know, bovine livestock is the next target of the climate change adherents. Cow farts will kill the planet, I tells ya!

 

 

2. Actually, reducing pollution is expensive, and the burden fall heavily on those nations which are still industrialising. Therefore it means prolonging their poverty. Which is a big deal if it's just so we can get in a flap at posh dinner parties.

You win.

 

That always makes me wonder - why isn't it Chinese or Indian "scientists" warning about this post-modern armageddon? In the case of a possible mass crops failure scenario (one of the woes of this environmental DOOM), they would get the short end of the stick for sure.

[Asol]

The global warming fetish is not necessary to feel or promote responsibility, part of the problem with the idea is compartmentalizing responsibility for personally driven environmental impact into a limited flawed and very rejectable package. Never mind why scientific authority has to be absolute and centralized, while glossing over apparent indiscretions like those linked.

 

People shouldn't need an authority to tell them they are demonstrably destroying their environment when they consume and reproduce like run away bacteria on a finite globe. The fossil fuel part is a scapegoat, or more probably the vilifying is a natural lead into years of peak oil which is the actual pressing issue supported by virtually anything I would call a responsible source.

[Purkake]

My point about having to switch eventually stands and I'd switch sooner rather than later.

Sure, fine. Are you going to switch to tofu burgers too? Because, you know, bovine livestock is the next target of the climate change adherents. Cow farts will kill the planet, I tells ya!

We actually have a "cow fart" tax here.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Global warming sceptics claim the emails prove it's all a scam, global warming scientists say they don't. Which one do you believe? Maybe people who want to draw conclusions from them should actually read the emails. Otherwise this whole topic is basically discussing other peoples opinions.

[Wrath of Dagon]

CO₂ is not necessarily a pollutant unless the theory that it causes harmful global warming is true.

[Purkake]

Global warming sceptics claim the emails prove it's all a scam, global warming scientists say they don't. Which one do you believe? Maybe people who want to draw conclusions from them should actually read the emails. Otherwise this whole topic is basically discussing other peoples opinions.

To Wikileaks!

[Gorgon]

If it's a scam, who's getting paid.

 

No one doubts that climate change is happening, not many people disagree that greenhouse gasses are a contributor, but how much of a contributor that's the question,

 

Further, can we do anything that would make a difference. Half measures really are pointless and that's all anyone can ever seem to agree on. I say spend the money on reducing poverty instead at least that way you know you are getting something back on the investment.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, in US we could actually do a lot and benefit economically by building nuclear power plants, but of course the environmentalists won't agree to that either.

 

Edit: As far as who's getting paid, Al Gore for example made millions though his fear mongering and by using his influence to steer "green" projects to companies he owns.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorgon]

In a perfect world nuclear is preferable, but the problem there is proliferation. If we start depending wholesale on nuclear power the security implications would be enormous.

 

Nuclear power has a bad rep because when things go wrong it really is one of the most scary things you can imagine, and because the industry has a history of being untrustworthy, but honestly if it can bring me cheap power I say build one here, yesterday. I won't be waving any protest flags.