Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It tries to break you in slowly to understanding the topics as McIntyre looks at the research pretty in-depth and unless you are familiar with statistical analysis and know all of the acronyms with the various things in the climate science field, it can be a bit "overwhelming" at first.
When I started reading his site, he didn't put much effort into making it friendly to the laymen and so it took a lot of reading and cross references to get with the flow.
I understand you being skeptical, please do be. Be it with absolutely everything, don't take someones word for it, let the data analysis do the talking.
Also, since you are going to run into it eventually (RC comes up a lot and is an issue in a lot of this), check out www.realclimate.org .
It is very pro AGW and those who run it are implicated in this scandal, so again... be SKEPTICAL of everything regardless of who they represent or who they work or speak for. Proof is in the evidence, not in words of authority.
Oh, and the current info is more "media like" and commentary as most of the readers already know what is going on with the issue. You will need to use the drop down to back track and catch up on some issues (some go for a few years btw).
Well since you're willing to discuss this reasonably, let me be clear on my position..... To me, there are simply too many benefits to eliminating dependence (and ultimately usage at all) on fossil fuels..... The way man treats the environment sickens me. I'm not here to claim that global warming is the gospel, but my personal point and agenda is, and always will be, that we need to be doing this s**t anyway (limiting emissions and such).....
Perhaps incidents like this data falsification is a matter of people being too over-zealous in their pursuit of the same goal that I share. Or maybe they are well-funded scientists that want to assure that they continue to get funded.... I cannot answer that. Regardless, this whole situation is unfortunate.
Let me also make it clear that I am no "tree-hugger". I drive a gas-powered vehicle since I have no affordable alternative. I recycle as much as I can, but could probably do better. I just get sickened when I constantly hear of toxic air being belched out of a plant next to elementary schools. Or that we cannot eat fish caught out of visually pristine rivers here in the Shenandoah Valley because of mercury poisoning and other man-dumped toxins in the rivers and coal waste from mountain-top mining......
So to me, it isn't about some damned CO2 tax. That's a pittance to me. People complain of the economic effect of such a thing. Well damn!!!! If we'd started doing what we ALL knew we should be 20 years ago, it wouldn't hurt so much today!!!
It pisses me off quite frankly.... We are trashing our world and it seems that too many are playing their fiddles while more metric tons of toxic sludge gets dumped into the Chesapeake, or the Great Lakes, or whereever.......
I laugh until I cry when I hear, "We need to limit toxic dumping into our waterways....". NO DAMNIT!!! WE NEED TO STOP TOXIC DUMPING INTO OUR WATERWAYS......
So anyway, this all isn't a tirade against you. It's to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. Doctored data in this instance is beyond me. As is clearly seen in this thread, this one thing has done more to harm the cause of those who advocate better treatment of our environment than letting some temperature anomolies that didn't agree with one's conclusions EVER could have done.....
So I'm no happier about it than any of you..... The difference is that, to me, it means that we've resigned ourselves to another 20+ years of belching s**t into our atmosphere and I'm pissed about it...
I laugh until I cry when I hear, "We need to limit toxic dumping into our waterways....". NO DAMNIT!!! WE NEED TO STOP TOXIC DUMPING INTO OUR WATERWAYS......
I'm with ya on that one Rhett. Sadly though stuff like toxic dumping is the EPA who doesn't do their job and waits until they have to send in men in hazmat suits.
But that CO2 tax isn't going to fix anything. You see the utilities can still use what they use and even increase what they use because of that tax.
Japan was supposed to reduce by 6% by 2012 and as of 2009 they are up 8%. They will just "buy" some carbon credits and call it a success.
What success is that ?
If they truly wanted to reduce then they would put numbers on the table and hold companies accountable..no tax, no credit, no derivatives market and fines up the ying yang if they don't meet their numbers. Make toxic pollution a valid reason to close down a plant and penalize the owners.
Stop putting those damn LED clocks on every dang appliance I buy..I'm tired of seeing 12:00 blinking all the time when I plug it in. Get rid of remotes..get off the damn couch and turn on that TV.
That, my friend, is reduction.
What is going on today over the EPA statement, Cap&Trade, Copenhagen won't accomplish that. What it will do is create a new class of carbon credit barons. BAU (business as usual).
I'm with ya on that one Rhett. Sadly though stuff like toxic dumping is the EPA who doesn't do their job and waits until they have to send in men in hazmat suits.
But that CO2 tax isn't going to fix anything. You see the utilities can still use what they use and even increase what they use because of that tax.
Japan was supposed to reduce by 6% by 2012 and as of 2009 they are up 8%. They will just "buy" some carbon credits and call it a success.
What success is that ?
If they truly wanted to reduce then they would put numbers on the table and hold companies accountable..no tax, no credit, no derivatives market and fines up the ying yang if they don't meet their numbers. Make toxic pollution a valid reason to close down a plant and penalize the owners.
Stop putting those damn LED clocks on every dang appliance I buy..I'm tired of seeing 12:00 blinking all the time when I plug it in. Get rid of remotes..get off the damn couch and turn on that TV.
That, my friend, is reduction.
What is going on today over the EPA statement, Cap&Trade, Copenhagen won't accomplish that. What it will do is create a new class of carbon credit barons. BAU (business as usual).
I can see where a CO2 tax will simply turn into a situation where they do what they want, pay the "tax" and pass it on to their customers.... So yeah, I'm not sure about this idea either.
The power to tax, is the power to destroy. It is a surrender to government. And if a world wide tax system is created, it is a surrender to a one world government.
Imagine Gore accepting the Nobel Prize and know he's done absolutley nothing to deserve it. How could somebody thumb their nose at humanity like that and keep a straight face?
"To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old." (Al Gore in the story link above)
To say something as assinine as this, when he knows it's so easy to prove it is false and that most people keeping up with the story, on both sides of global warming, don't even have to research it to know there are more recent e-mails than 10 years ago. What is the matter with that man? First he decides to become the global warming poster boy and doesn't think anyone will check to see if he's walking the walk and not just talking the talk. That's exposed pretty early on that he was just talking the talk at Gore Mansion. Then he tries to sham the very people who believe what he's saying with carbon credit voodoo that says you guys work on saving the planet and the rest of us rich guys can keep crapping all over it by buying our way out of our guilt with carbon credits and oh by the way, that's my new investment. Then, this easily proven lie about climategate.
Is it hubris that makes people like Al Gore think they can get away with stuff like this or is he so afraid of his celebrity status and money-maker caving in on him that he's just saying dumb things without thinking it through?
Medical literature has what to do with climatology? Remind me when you get a sec... This isn't a non-related credential comparison thread. If you have relevent education and experience in this field then fine.
Disingenuous conclusion. Science from ice core samples proves that an initial rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, yes.... What you're ignoring is the effect that adding CO2 to this process can do to speed it up... The relationship goes in both directions.
I don't think (not going to speak for everyone) that anyone is saying that we are the ONLY thing contributing to a rise in temperatures... What is being said is that man-made CO2 is accelerating the process.
If you've seen believers in global warming claiming that polar regions were never warm then all of this is relevent. Otherwise...... So what?
Actual temperatures WHERE? We need to agree on WHERE we are talking about.... Average global temps don't appear to be cooling. I'm more than open to seeing YOUR data on the matter.... Sounds like the, "Hey I live in Texas and it's 20 degrees colder today than it was this day last year!!! Global warming my arse!!!" crowd reasoning.
Again- This is the problem with people who have no knowledge of science trying to interpret science. You prove your own point.
1. What does the medical literature have to do with "climate science"? Having published in the literature, understanding the statistical validation of studies and the peer review process means EVERYTHING. A little hint there, Dr. Science- read the methods before you read the abstract and conlcusions. Global warming is primarily flawed by poor statistical data base- too short of time period of analysis to be relevant.
2. What significance is the fossil record? EVERYTHING! IT IS THE DATA! Ignoring the fossil record (as it is an inconvenient truth) is ignoring the real data. WAKE UP. You cannot explain why the artic used to be a tropical climate, as it does not fit your flawed hypothesis.
3. Data that the planet is cooling? Here it is. Funny- when temperature is measured in non-urban hot zones, one gets a different answer. That goes back again to evaluation of methods. Garbage in- garbage out.
I can see where a CO2 tax will simply turn into a situation where they do what they want, pay the "tax" and pass it on to their customers.... So yeah, I'm not sure about this idea either.
Of course. The "cure" has nothing to do with CO2. It is about global redistribution of wealth.
I fail to see why you cling to this false premise when the data is terribly corrupted and the impetus for "solutions" has nothing to do with the percieved "problem". Wake up.
Well since you're willing to discuss this reasonably, let me be clear on my position..... To me, there are simply too many benefits to eliminating dependence (and ultimately usage at all) on fossil fuels..... The way man treats the environment sickens me. I'm not here to claim that global warming is the gospel, but my personal point and agenda is, and always will be, that we need to be doing this s**t anyway (limiting emissions and such).....
Perhaps incidents like this data falsification is a matter of people being too over-zealous in their pursuit of the same goal that I share. Or maybe they are well-funded scientists that want to assure that they continue to get funded.... I cannot answer that. Regardless, this whole situation is unfortunate.
Let me also make it clear that I am no "tree-hugger". I drive a gas-powered vehicle since I have no affordable alternative. I recycle as much as I can, but could probably do better. I just get sickened when I constantly hear of toxic air being belched out of a plant next to elementary schools. Or that we cannot eat fish caught out of visually pristine rivers here in the Shenandoah Valley because of mercury poisoning and other man-dumped toxins in the rivers and coal waste from mountain-top mining......
So to me, it isn't about some damned CO2 tax. That's a pittance to me. People complain of the economic effect of such a thing. Well damn!!!! If we'd started doing what we ALL knew we should be 20 years ago, it wouldn't hurt so much today!!!
It pisses me off quite frankly.... We are trashing our world and it seems that too many are playing their fiddles while more metric tons of toxic sludge gets dumped into the Chesapeake, or the Great Lakes, or whereever.......
I laugh until I cry when I hear, "We need to limit toxic dumping into our waterways....". NO DAMNIT!!! WE NEED TO STOP TOXIC DUMPING INTO OUR WATERWAYS......
So anyway, this all isn't a tirade against you. It's to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. Doctored data in this instance is beyond me. As is clearly seen in this thread, this one thing has done more to harm the cause of those who advocate better treatment of our environment than letting some temperature anomolies that didn't agree with one's conclusions EVER could have done.....
So I'm no happier about it than any of you..... The difference is that, to me, it means that we've resigned ourselves to another 20+ years of belching s**t into our atmosphere and I'm pissed about it...
That is fine that you have a position as such, yet here is the concern...
That position when it concerns "science" should be thrown out the door when evaluating the evidence of a claim. A scientist cares about the methodology, the process of objectivity, following evidence trails to see where they lead and what they mean. There is no concern about the outcome, no stake in a certain resolution, just a process of discovery and its true meaning and form.
Fact is not concerned with opinion, It is not concerned with good, evil, or justice. It simply is what it is.
Look at the result here. The cause was put before the science and by doing so, the cause was severely hurt when the deceit was found. The good intentions did far more damage than intended. An entire movement has been severely injured because it applied deviousness to achieve its results, rather than honesty.
A person who lies with good intentions and is caught, is branded a liar. Even though not all of their claims may be lies, they have destroyed the integrity of their message and few will listen to them anymore because they can not be trusted.
For example, if the research were approached honestly and with integrity, it may not be the support you want (urgency, severity to implement control to enforce and apply solutions without consent), but you would still have the position that cleaner and more efficient is better. You would still have the message that localized pollution is not good and measures should be taken to avoid the results of local effect (severe smog, polluted water ways, etc...) and because you can properly show those, it would give your message power as you sought solutions for those areas where the effects can be quantified.
Instead though, by using political tactics and the manipulation of science to misinform and scare the public into a view, it has caused damage to the cause that is severe. A damage that will even hamper a message in areas where they can show that there are problems. People will be unwilling to listen or consider, for they have lost the trust of those who supported this trickery. Also by taking the road without integrity to achieve results, it has placed the movement with company that used the movement for its own political goals of power and money. Which has severely damaged the reputation of this movement for years to come. The ends never justifies the means, and bad actions with good intentions always results in harm.
The only way to repair such is to admit wrong, accept the responsibility for it and approach things the proper way. If this is done, it will eventually result in the accomplishments sought (if they truly are honest goals that contain integrity). It won't come easy at first as there will be a lot who will not trust or accept, but time and actions that are honest may eventually earn back that trust. Any other approach will result in damage that may never be repaired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
