Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 23, 2009, 12:44
Merrick wrote:
jshell wrote:
if this is true it will damage the case for CO2 controls and, well, just about everything to curb temperature rises.

Er, no it won't. It doesn't show anything that would do that.

Rather like heading this thread 'cat's out of the bag', you are vastly overstating the importance of the emails and blatantly misrepresenting what they contain. They do not show that climate change is not being driven by human activities.

jshell wrote:
If you ignore links to this revalation, then it's just sitting in the dark and believing in something with blind faith...a bit like religion.

That would be true, were it not for the fact that the leaked emails don't show any cover-up of human-induced climate change being a hoax, and for the fact that there is overwhelming data from scientists all around the world that is accepted as fact by 99% of climatologists and meteorologists. These things put it well beyond the realm of faith.

You are either too dim to realise that difference, or you are smart enough to but want to miscast it in that light. I wonder which it is.

As far back as 1995 scientists advising the Global Climate coalition - a fossil-industries clmamte denial body - said plainly that:

"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied".

Yet those industries continued to deny climate change was happening, and after that became irrefutable in the public mind they switched to saying well yes, it was happening, but it wasn't human-induced.

The continuing job of the climate denier is not to show climate change isn't happening, but to say that there's some doubt as to whether humans are responsible.

The scientific consensus level is similar to that saying that there's a link between tobacco and cancer. So having someone misrepresent minor material as proof that the entire realm of scientific evidence may be fraudulent, with links not to any data from scientific bodies but to right-wing denialist blogs, well, you see what that looks like, don't you?

jshell wrote:
I'll say it again, make up your own mind.

And I'll say it again

All you have to do is answer four simple questions.

1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures?
3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?

Hi Merrick, you seem determined to cast me as a 'Denier'. I've actually been pretty straight about sitting on the fence on this matter. However, it doesn't mean that my 'pendulum' doesn't swing back and forth depending on what I read and hear. I refuse to sit in a 'camp'.

Anyway, to answer your questions:
1. Of course it does.
2. That's unproven, and confirmed unproven by the text of some of the messages in the hack/leak. They are having problems proving that CO2 is causing warming as they haven't seen the warming they expected despite increasing CO2. It's there in those texts for all to see. There's also other periods of history where there's been warming without CO2 spikes - that's covered in the texts too.
3. According to a lot of research that has been linked to in the sites talking about the hack/leak, CO2 is not directly linked to rising temps as demonstrated by the CRU info itself.
4. Yes, but the figure quoted is 4% of total global emissions and that appears negligible to me. So, in order for man to decrease global carbon emissions by 1%, we'd have to cut back by a whopping 50% of man's total - gains which could be wiped out overnight by one volcano 'cough'. Think about that number for a minute, 50% of the global industry emissions!!! Stoneage anyone?

Anyways, back to the hack/leak. If anyone can put the politics & emotions and entrenched views away for a moment and have a look at this link:


Then you'll see that now people are starting to delve into the actual code that's been part of the release. Forget the mails, texts, biching, FOI requests etc, etc. Here are techies at CRU trying to decipher the original code from CRU, on behalf of CRU, saying that the whole thing is bullshit, based on bullshit and calculated using bullshit.

Here's on little quote from it:

""The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.""
Again, what the fucking, fuck?

I don't want to argue with anyone here, really, but this has serious, serious global implications for each person, country, economy etc, etc.

I watched the MP's expenses scandal with increasing anger, I watched the whitewash over Iraq & WMD's with rage. It feels like deja vu.

Again, read what's coming out for YOURSELF, decide what to believe in! But, for goodness sakes, read both sides.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index