|
U-Know! Forum » Another Climate-Gate Leak... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Nov 23, 2011, 16:16
Nov 23, 2011, 16:15
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Why do you need to reply to my post twice ? My viewpoint is clear enough. I'm not being horrible, I'm just pointing out that your view is at odds with both the skeptic and warmist view, so you are in a very strange place indeed, neither one side or the other. So, I suggested you have a look at the evidence yourself. Something the IPCC obviously, from the e-mails, don't do either. None so blind and all of that... At least I read both sides, a luxury that skeptics actually have. If you make a point or strong view known online then expect varying views.
|
|||
laresident 861 posts |
Nov 24, 2011, 03:26
|
||
ditto. And its nice you still pop in, Annexus.
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Nov 24, 2011, 08:23
|
||
My view is not at odds at all. Climate change cycles occur naturally, of course, but the activities of humanity in the modern Industrialised period have had an increasingly harmful effect, so it doesn't really matter whether the current cycle is or isn't of natural origin in the first instance, as we are most certainly adding to it to a potentially catastrophic effect. Tha't the nub of the matter. It's a cases of barn doors and horses at the end of the day. The point that matters above all else is addressing our actions now. We've already passed the critical point in terms of forthcoming ramifications, so damage limitation sounds rather glib in this instance.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Nov 24, 2011, 16:34
|
||
|
Emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit have once again been hacked and released on the internet. The timing is similar to the “climategate” scandal of 2009, with emails published just before an important UN climate conference. Does this mean the science is in doubt? Quite the opposite, says Stephan Lewandowsky. An ambulance pulls up behind you. You know it’s an ambulance because you can read AMBULANCE in your rear view mirror. But you can also read it when you look at the vehicle directly; because the human visual system has the ability to quickly correct complete inversions or left-right reversals of letters. In fact, a complete inversion is easier to read than letters that are rotated only partially. This human ability to process complete inversions more quickly than just partial distortions, alas, lends itself to exploitation by ruthless propagandists who seek to create a chimerical world in which up is down, left is right, and good is smeared as evil. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the netherworld of attacks on climate scientists. Remember “climategate”? The illegal hack of personal emails released just before the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 that some columnists pronounced to be the (approximately 132nd) “final nail in the coffin” of global warming? Remember the “errors” in the IPCC’s 2007 report? “Amazongate”, “Himalayagate”, and so on? What has happened to “climategate”? What’s happened is this. First, the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee exonerated the scientist at the centre of the tempest, Professor Phil Jones, finding he has “no case to answer” and that his reputation “remains intact.” Then Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of Shell-UK) and his panel likewise exonerated the researchers, finding their “work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation” are “not valid.” Another enquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, found the scientists’ “rigour and honesty” to be beyond doubt. Two enquiries by his university also cleared Professor Michael Mann – who presented the first of now innumerable “hockey stick” graphs – of all allegations. Ultimately the (conservative) UK Government concluded “the information contained in the illegally-disclosed emails does not provide any evidence to discredit … anthropogenic climate change.” Not one, not two, but by now nine vindications. This comes as no surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the distinction between private chat and public actions. And what has happened to the IPCC “Whatevergates”? What’s happened is this. First, the Sunday Times apologised and retracted its “Amazongate” story. There is no “Amazongate”; there is only the Amazon rainforest threatened by climate change. Then the Dutch government accepted responsibility for erroneously informing the IPCC that 55% of the Netherlands are below sea level. In fact only 26% are at risk of flooding because they are below sea level, whereas the other 29% are, err, at risk of flooding from rivers. And about a year after “climategate” broke, the BBC finally apologised to the University of East Anglia for its misleading coverage of the “climategate” pseudo-scandal. All that’s left of the “Whatevergates”, therefore, is red-faced apologies and one indubitable IPCC error: the incorrect projection of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers to 2035, as opposed to the more likely 2350. This error was drawn to the public’s attention by, wait for it, an IPCC author. Can we now forget about “gate” in connection with “climate”? No. Because there are too many real climategates that must not escape attention. First, there was another batch of private emails posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a “think” tank notorious even by American standards. Those emails — yes, a second hack — revealed the real climategate by being truthful, with one scientist stating: “Those who deny the biophysical facts of the world would deny … gravity” and “we’re not in a gentlepersons' debate, we’re in a street fight against … merciless enemies. Colleagues … are getting threatened with prosecution by … [US Senator James M.] Inhofe.” That is the second real climategate: the McCarthyite attempts by Senator Inhofe to criminalise climate scientists — attempts to criminalise those who, 35 years ago, predicted the temperature rise by century’s end to within 1/10th of a degree. This is no isolated incident: Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, has launched several frivolous lawsuits — despite losing an earlier one — against the University of Virginia in what the Washington Post called a “war on the freedom of academic inquiry"“. And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman evoked Pastor Niemoeller’s cry against the erosion of humanity under the Nazis: “First, they came for the climate scientists…”. The real climategate involves active censorship within NASA by Bush appointees, which the agency’s Inspector General later found to have “reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science". The real climategate involves Bush White House staff replacing assessments of the National Academy of Sciences with a discredited paper by two individuals with no expertise in climatology. This paper, funded by the American Petroleum Institute, was so flawed its appearance in a peer-reviewed journal led to the resignation in protest by three editors and the publisher’s unprecedented acknowledgement of mishandling. Those are not merely historical episodes because the real climategate encompasses the ongoing complicity of some media organs. In Canada, the real media climategate involves the ongoing list of defamatory articles by the “National Post.” The tabloid is finally being sued by Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria. In Australia, the real media climategate involves the national daily newspaper, whose misrepresentations of science are legendary and, sadly ongoing. Those real climategates are the tip of an iceberg of venality enveloping anti-science interests and their enablers. And just a few hours ago, another illegal release of personal emails among scientists was dumped on to the world in the lead-up to the next climate conference in Durban. First Copenhagen, now Durban. When the science is so rock solid that it can no longer be reasonably doubted, all that is left is to steal private correspondence in a desperate attempt to disparage those who are trying to protect the world from the risks it is facing. Joseph Welch famously brought down Joe McCarthy with a simple question: “Have you no sense of decency?” This year has already witnessed multiple events that break climate records: the drought in East Africa, the worst drought in Texas' recorded history, and record breaking storms and floods in the US south. Those events, anticipated by climatologists decades ago, should remind us that those who persecute and harass scientists, or mendaciously misrepresent their actions and findings, have no sense of decency. That is the real climategate. http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Nov 24, 2011, 17:36
|
||
|
really... certainly you are free to believe wot u wanta believe... or ignore... good luck with that... x x x
|
|||
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Nov 24, 2011, 20:29
|
||
|
Thanks! There are always unexpected bits of gnostic Use-full-ness turning up here in HH, or Unsung news, Daity, etc, so it's good to quick-check every once in a while. Best wishes, AQ
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Nov 25, 2011, 06:38
|
||
Disregarding this correlation does not equal causation line of thinking, can it really be such an awful thing questioning how you conduct your everyday lives- your electricity usage, your garbage produced and where it goes etc.? Stepping outside of Western convenience and complacency and asking questions can only be a good thing. Perhaps you dislike the money being thrown at global warming, but s'far as so-called mass-delusions are concerned it's a pretty healthy one.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 25, 2011, 12:24
|
||
|
jshell wrote: Despite the CO2 rises, we've had 2 years of falling sea temperatures and levels which doesn't fit with the scaremongering... You have, on this board, been patiently and repeatedly walked through why this argument is nonsense. The fact that once again this zombie argument rises to walk among us tells us much about your thinking and nothing about climate change. |
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 25, 2011, 14:37
|
||
|
No, I’ve been repeatedly fed the same crap that is peddled by the IPCC, and RealClimate which was set up by the very people shown to be acting fraudulently in both sets of leaked e-mails. But, strangely, the IPCC said 2 weeks ago: "Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain" That admission that there is practically no discernable human influence in climate, and is unlikely to be any for 30 years is a far, far cry from: We’re all doomed and going to boil alive in our own juices of the AR4. The fact that there is any climb-down by the IPCC is HUGE and should not ever be underestimated. It also shows that they are expecting nothing substantial within the timescale of solar cycles. They are clever here, they have set themselves up so that when the solar cycles again start heating the earth, then the whole pile of shyte can start-up again. And, again I ask: Why do so many left-leaners support a system that makes some very rich people even richer at the expense of poor people? |
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 25, 2011, 14:45
|
||
|
Sin Agog wrote: Disregarding this correlation does not equal causation line of thinking, can it really be such an awful thing questioning how you conduct your everyday lives- your electricity usage, your garbage produced and where it goes etc.? Stepping outside of Western convenience and complacency and asking questions can only be a good thing. Perhaps you dislike the money being thrown at global warming, but s'far as so-called mass-delusions are concerned it's a pretty healthy one. Honestly? Part of my anger is that this issue clouds the real issues surrounding your exact points, plus many, many more on what we are doing to this planet. It's not a healthy delusion if all it's done is foster a crooked carbon trading market, wind-mills that are so, so, so bad for the very environment they're trying to save and 'feed in tarrifs' that will raise energy-led-poverty-deaths in our sick and infirm. (Despite what Huhne says in the Guardian, the lying cnut) We're all wrapped up in emissions of a harmless (actually beneficial) gas that we forget about the plastic island in the Pacific, the devastation caused by strip-mining, the scourge of uber-packaging, etc, etc, etc. I'm not anti-environment, I'm anti-diversionary bullshit.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
