The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Duke87 1,070]

...further demonstrating that we don't have anywhere near as firm a grasp of what's going on and what's causing it as people would like to believe.

I still wouldn't rule out the possibility of human influence. We can't definitively say it's not a factor. Of course, as we already knew considering the Earth has been going through cycles of cooling and warming for millions of years, there are many other factors.

We're in a cooling period now, no doubt, but what remains to be seen is how severe the next warming period will be. After all, there are two.... well, three possibilities of where the trends could go from here:

- there will be a net upward trend

- there will be no significant net change

- there will be a net downward trend

Only time will tell for sure which we'll see.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

...further demonstrating that we don't have anywhere near as firm a grasp of what's going on and what's causing it as people would like to believe.

I still wouldn't rule out the possibility of human influence. We can't definitively say it's not a factor. Of course, as we already knew considering the Earth has been going through cycles of cooling and warming for millions of years, there are many other factors.

We're in a cooling period now, no doubt, but what remains to be seen is how severe the next warming period will be. After all, there are two.... well, three possibilities of where the trends could go from here:

- there will be a net upward trend

- there will be no significant net change

- there will be a net downward trend

Only time will tell for sure which we'll see.quote>

That still dosent mean we shouldnt reduce polution,and deforestation, over fishing, strip mining, dumping waste into the lakes, rivers and oceans.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

That still dosent mean we shouldnt reduce polution,and deforestation, over fishing, strip mining, dumping waste into the lakes, rivers and oceans.

quote>

Most of those have nothing to do with the idea of global warming. Strip mining has its uses, waste dumping into waterways is already illegal, etc.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

That still dosent mean we shouldnt reduce polution,and deforestation, over fishing, strip mining, dumping waste into the lakes, rivers and oceans.

quote>

Most of those have nothing to do with the idea of global warming. Strip mining has its uses, waste dumping into waterways is already illegal, etc.quote>

Deforestation does when forrests absorb massive amounts of CO2

[sneakeypete 16]

I might have said this before in this thread, but i really do hate the fact that the whole "global warming" fear is distracting us from the more important stuff like deforistation, plastics, salinity etc.

[duack 14]

I agree with Sneakeypete. Global warming is very ditracting from issues of sustainability - remembering that sustainability is about social and economic wellbeing as much as it is about environmental protection.

What makes global warming so talked about and questioned is the fact that the Earth has so many feedback mechanisms to warming and increased CO2. Both positive and negative feedback systems. Eg

Increasing evaporation means more latent heat is transferred, and more cloads which increases the albedo of the earth, but water vapour is a greenhouse gas and traps heat. Also, increased CO2 encourages more plant growth which is a negative feedback, but warming leads to more warming because of increased fire and ice melting etc the list goes on.

There's some funny wordplay with the feedback systems though because positive feedbacks increase rates of warming whereas negative feedbacks reduce rates of warming. Its funny because the positive is bad and the negative is good.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Deforestation does when forrests absorb massive amounts of CO2

quote>

But there's more trees in N America now than there was/were 200 years ago, according to what I read. Old-growth trees do not absorb more CO² than other trees of the same size. But the point of my previous post still stands. Global temps are actually cooling now despite CO² levels, and will for some time to come. The fear-peddlers are starting to be exposed.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

At least you stipulate that the truth is incalculable. I did qualify my statement. This question has been thrown back and forth for years, so there's likely to be some truth to it.

The Coast Redwood is a poor example, as its range and numbers were very limited even before European settlement. It's also a conifer, which is much less efficient at CO2 absorption.

I'd wager that 2 or 3 standard suburban trees easily match 1 old oak in total CO2 absorbed. The Central US was prairie and grassland in Colonial times, it's unchallenged that there are millions more trees in the region now than there were 200 years ago. For example, in Illinois, the drive is on to "Save the prairie", with all the same doom predictions as any ecogroup might say about the trees. The local "forest preserves" are actually artificial plantings going back to the 1950s, where grassland used to be. The first thing land restoration groups do here is cut down trees.

The suburban trees in older 'burbs are often maples and oaks; many planted to replace the huge elm canopies lost to Dutch Elm disease. Even the lilacs I tore out in the spring were 50+ years old, many of the trees on this block alone are 100 years old or more; a silver maple out back is easily 75-100 according to the tree specialist. I would think that's pretty darn near 'old growth'. But they don't count, because of their location? All these old trees on former grassland should have the enviromentalists here fighting each other tooth and nail. And this is but one of dozens of 'burbs in the Chicago area alone that is in excess of a century old, with trees to match.

But this tangent-picking is off the main point; global warming is looking more and more like hot air.

[fukuda 351]

Also, increased CO2 encourages more plant growth which is a negative feedbackquote>

Plant growth depends on the ground minerals, it doesn't matter how much excessive CO2 you put in the air.

It does however have an impact, increasing CO2 levels cause a decrease in plant transpiration (you can keep the stomata closed a longer time which in turn saves water).

[Duke87 1,070]

On the "more trees than 200 years ago" issue, it's also woth stressing that in the eastern US (as in much of Europe), the native forests disappeared in many places because people chopped all the trees down either to burn as firewood or use as a building material. The land was then often used to grow crops or raise livestock.

Now, the agricultural industry in America has all but entirely moved out west, wood fires are no longer a means of heating homes or cooking, and wood as a building material no longer comes from old growth forest but rather from farmed trees which are overwhelmingly softwoods (conifers) because they grow faster.

As a result, throughout the 20th century the forests in the eastern US grew back. All over New england there are stone walls that centuries ago separated people's fields that now instead run through "the woods". Animals like coyotes and wild turkeys which previously had become locally extinct due to the deforestation are back in the region.

So, yes, obviously nobody's counted all the trees now and certainly nobody counted them 200 years ago, but it's not outlandish to claim there are more now since, knowing the history involved, it'd be hard to believe there aren't.

And sure, redwoods can't be replaced that quickly, but they account for a miniscule percentage of all the arborous plant matter on the continent and many other species which can be replaced certainly have.

[Shoji_sim 9]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Deforestation does when forrests absorb massive amounts of CO2

quote>

But there's more trees in N America now than there was/were 200 years ago, according to what I read. Old-growth trees do not absorb more CO² than other trees of the same size. But the point of my previous post still stands. Global temps are actually cooling now despite CO² levels, and will for some time to come. The fear-peddlers are starting to be exposed.

quote>

Take a look at this:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/forest_map.jpg

Even if there were more trees in N America now then there were 200 years ago, deforestation still occurs around the world. NAmerc. only aacounts for about 1/5 of all forest in the world, so trees do make a big effect.

---

In fact global warming is a lot more than melting ice caps and causing desertification, etc. Here's a passage from this site about more harm it can do:

The Gulf Stream is a current that takes warm water from the tropics and brings it north to the east coast of North America and then on to Europe. Water from this warm current evaporates and warms the air, giving northwestern Europe a milder climate than Canada at the same latitude.

You might think that warming up the tropics would just make the Gulf Stream warmer—but it's not as simple as that. (Of course not!) The action that propels the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents comes from simple physics: when warm Gulf Stream water evaporates up by Europe, the remaining water becomes colder and saltier—which makes the water denser. Because it's denser, this water sinks—and warmer surface water flows in to replace it. That simple action keeps the current flowing.

How would climate change mess up this nice process—which has been carrying on placidly at least a few centuries? Well, the extra heat is melting ice in the Arctic Ocean (and incidentally threatening the life style of polar bears that hunt on the pack ice (www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate)). When the Arctic ice melts, it becomes fresh water, which flows into the salty North Atlantic. And here's the problem: that fresh water may dilute the salty current of the Gulf Stream so much that it stops sinking and stops the flow of the Gulf Stream. If that happens, Europe would freeze as a result of global warming.

Some researchers blame Europe's "Little Ice Age," the cold snap that lasted from 1300 to 1800, on just such a slowdown in the Gulf Stream.

quote>

So that would mean anyone living in Europe when temperatures start to rise by 2 or 3 degrees will actually might have to buy a new set of woolly clothes and maybe a snowmobile.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

While I am in favour of protecting the boreal forests and planting more trees, it is not only the CO₂ absorbtion that is important.  Old growth forests also stabilize the watershed and prevent erosion.  Protection of wetlands is also very important because the water plants and algae in them also are CO₂ absorbers.

In fact, we need to think environmentally, and not run around in a tizzy worrying about the atmosphere.  The current level of warming is causing a great stirring by mother nature and the air is getting a good mixing up.  Note the recent weather bomb (yesterday) in Newfoundland.  Winds of categary 1 Hurricane strength were caused by a low from the middle of the continent.  Time to start watching the isobars, folks.

With the opening of the Arctic Ocean with the resulting rise in the water levels, reduction of salinity in the Labrador Current, we can get some rather distubing short-term effects.  If this gets too bad, the Gulf Stream could be deflected or even stopped.  If that happens, Britain and the countries on the north sea will be in for a deep freeze.

Of course, eventually, an open Arctic will lead to an ice age, but only geologically soon.

Maybe it is time to stop trying to stop the train and start thinking about how we are going to live with the mess.

[duack 14]

A quick question on the topic of Europe and the whole water current thing - how much of an effect does the warm current have? Because say it has a degree of increasing the tempurature by 5 degrees, and then it disappears because of global warming, at the same time the Earth gets 5 dgrees hotter evening out the effect. However, we know that cold places get hotter faster in terms of global warming, so Europe will rise faster than average. So does anyone know how big the effect of the warm current is on Europe, because that link doesn't say.

Also, it would take decades for the warm currents to stop, so global warming will gradually "take over" in terms of keeping Europe warm. Anywho that just supports my evening out theory. =)

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: duack how much of an effect does the warm current have?quote>

 New York, USA 40º 47'

 

Lisbon, Portugal 38º 43'

2 coastal cities at more or less the same latitude, one in the US, the other one in Europe.

(Lisbon has a special microclimate so temperatures don't rise high in summer)

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Did anyone else see this story? I'm going to have to start a thread soon, "Manticorefan was right". Hackers have exposed manipulation of numbers, and that other scientists are aware of it. Now, the damage control says it's all out of context and distorted, but that's what every politician says when there's a foot in their mouth.

[Lampala 1]

I think this is a better article for this discussion: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

It has more information on the actual emails than the hacker. Everyone acts so concerned about the hacker that the actual information is being covered up. What this boils down to is scientists not being scientists but political activists. Global Warming is a THOERY and the scientific solution to figuring it out would be to welcome questions and skepticism, and covering up anything that opposes their viewpoint is obvious bias. Biased science is just political activism.

Plus, the scientific population has a lot to gain from there being a general consensus of climate change. This increases their political power greatly, and a climatically-stable future they promote must be obtained through scientific research too, hugely increasing the need for scientists. I don't think this makes them all power-hungry corrupted liars, but it's something to consider.

My opinion is that climate change can't be justified as good science. This incident of apparently obvious altering of data to get a point across goes to support that.

[MattShizzle 11]

Originally posted by: Lampala

I Global Warming is a THOERY quote>

So is gravity. So is the germ THEORY of disease. Do you really expect one day scientists to say gravity isn't true or that germs don't cause disease? When a scientist uses the word "theory" it means something very well established.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

Originally posted by: Lampala

Global Warming is a THOERY quote>

So is gravity. So is the germ THEORY of disease. Do you really expect one day scientists to say gravity isn't true or that germs don't cause disease? When a scientist uses the word "theory" it means something very well established.quote>

Don't get too hung up on the word "theory". Let's look at some facts instead.

Fact: the planet is now actually cooling

Fact: we've just uncovered a boatload of evidence showing that scientists were fabricating and fudging data to support global warming

Fact: global warming is a relatively young idea

Fact: things aren't starting to fall up and infections aren't showing up with no bacteria or viruses in them

Fact: nobody's been found to be committing a fraud in favor of "germ theory" or gravity

Fact: both are old ideas and have withstood the test of time

Gravity and "germ theory" are good theories.

Global warming, on the other hand, is not on such a solid footing.

[astronelson 339]

Fact: the planet is now actually coolingquote>

The climate is a very uncertain thing, and it could very possibly be that, for some relatively short periods of time (a few years), the average temperature could drop while, over longer periods of time (decades), the temperature increases.

Fact: we've just uncovered a boatload of evidence showing that scientists were fabricating and fudging data to support global warmingquote>

Some, perhaps. But certainly not all, and almost certainly not the majority.

Fact: global warming is a relatively young ideaquote>

Irrelevant. A young idea is not necessarily wrong, and an old idea is not necessarily right. As an analogy, Relativity is younger than Newtonian mechanics, but it is more correct. However, I assume you mean it is young in the way of not having as much research.

More facts:

1. CO₂ (and various other gases) have, in experiments easy enough to do at home, been shown to produce, at concentrations that are not improbably high, a marked increase in temperature compared to a standard air sample.

2. These gases exist in the atmosphere and have, since the industrial revolution, increased in concentration dramatically.

3. Logic works.

So, presumably, we can go through the following logical process:

From 1&2, it can be shown that increasing the levels of various gases in the atmosphere leads to increased temperatures overall.

Of course, there can and will be some short-term variation, such as a few years of lower-than-predicted temperatures and a few years of higher-than-predicted temperatures, but the overall trend (on the scale of decades) should show an increase.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: astronelson

More facts:

1. CO₂ (and various other gases) have, in experiments easy enough to do at home, been shown to produce, at concentrations that are not improbably high, a marked increase in temperature compared to a standard air sample.

2. These gases exist in the atmosphere and have, since the industrial revolution, increased in concentration dramatically.

3. Logic works.

So, presumably, we can go through the following logical process:

From 1&2, it can be shown that increasing the levels of various gases in the atmosphere leads to increased temperatures overall.quote>

But the very important question not answered there is... how much?

Lots of things lead to an increase in temperature. Most of them have a negligible contribution. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, yes, but there are obviously many other important variables in determining climate - most of which we have no control over.

The other problem is that experements, for various reasons, don't always scale up or down very well. For instance, the results from wind tunnel tests on scale models of buildings and whatnot have been found to not entirely jive with reality on the full scale final structure, more so the more the model is scaled down. It would be absurd to assume that what CO₂ does to a sample of air in a lab will just proportionally scale up to what it will do to the atmosphere of the entire planet. For one thing, the atmosphere is not homogeneous. It comes in layers, it's thicker at the equator, and due to winds and weather patterns it's constantly shifting around. A "standard air sample" won't represent all that. It also won't represent many side effects of increased CO₂ concentrations, some of which we probably haven't considered or even thought of.

Point being, it's far too complex a thing to try to model and predict.

...and when we find that people have been BSing in their models and predictions, and have known damn well all along that this is just as much if not more an issue of politics as it is of science, it's hard to not be skeptical.

[chicah 20]

What I think about this issue:

http://blogs.simtropolis.com/chicah/index.cfm/2009/12/8/History-will-judge-us

Figured it would be a bit... too much to write it in here.

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, so the EPA has decided to declare carbon dioxide a health hazard.

Um.... *exhales*

Really now?

Also, apparently, somebody projected that Copenhagen conferenence will have a carbon footprint the size of over 50,000 average Americans for its two-week duration*. Fun.

Surprised it isn't more, considering all the hot air they're spewing.

*according to CNN: conference = 41000 tons of CO₂, average American = 20 tons of CO₂ per year)

[Boggy1 45]

This whole business of the leaked University of East Anglia documents are not a smoking gun, or the death knell of climate change.

I can't put it in better words than good old Phil Plait, of badastronomy.com

I think a followup on my earlier post on the climatologists' emails is called for.

The comments in that post have been interesting. Most of them - and there are a lot - completely missed the point I was making, which isn't terribly surprising. I called this whole thing a non-event because it's manufactured drama. It is not the smoking gun, it doesn't discredit climatological research showing the Earth is warming, and it doesn't show that scientists are some sort of priesthood guarding their domain. As Real Climate points out, it's not what's in the files that's interesting, it's what's not in them: nothing about huge conspiracies, nothing about this all being faked. If this is such damning evidence, where's that evidence?

What these files do show is scientists trying to deal with data, software, and science, all the while also trying to figure out what to do with attacks on their work that are largely ideologically driven. I don't think they handled that all that well, and that doesn't surprise me. They're scientists, not wonks. Of course, if you look at the files from the point of view of giant conspiracies it seems very racy, and clearly a lot of the commenters on my original post feel that way. But to reiterate, this does not call into question the reality of global warming in general.

To further show that, look at some of the things being said. Many people - and some who should really know better - are saying Phil Jones, the head of the group whose files were hacked, has been "fired". That's simply not true. He has stepped aside, temporarily, while the situation is being investigated. The news reports on this were very clear. So why would someone say he was fired? I submit it's because they are trying to spin this situation up into more than it is.

Again, as I thought I made clear in the earlier post, the methods being used by the scientists in question don't look to me like they were faking data. In software it's common to test out different methods, see what works, and what doesn't. A piece of software I wrote for working with Hubble data went through hundreds of iterations and edits before going live (and was updated quite a bit after that as well). Software used to analyze data is a little like science itself: it changes as you learn more and find better ways to do things. If you found an early version of my code you might wonder if I was faking the data too! The examples of code in the hacked files may have been early versions, or had some estimations (called, not always accurately, fudge factors) used in place of real numbers... the thing is, we don't know. Drawing conclusions of widespread scientific fraud from what we've seen is ridiculous.

As far as the scientists' attitudes go, much hay has been made of that as well. But I wonder. Imagine you've dedicated your life to some scientific pursuit. You do it because you love it, because you want to make the world a better place, and because you can see the physics beneath the surface, weaving the tapestry of reality, guiding the ebb and flow of forces both subtle and gross. Then you find that people start attacking you with flimsy evidence, politically motivated vitriol, and even elected officials say that what you are doing is a "hoax". How do you react?

The circling of wagons and questions of what to do and how to deal with the situation don't surprise me at all. And again, without the context of those emails we don't know what the real story is. You can claim scientific fraud and obstructionism all you want, but you don't know, and I don't either. I actually agree that this should be investigated, but I hope they look at all the evidence, and don't quote mine and cherry pick as so many people have done.

People say I'm biased, which may be a fair cop. I am biased: to reality. If we had real evidence that global warming was not occurring, then I'd pay attention. I've looked at the so-called "other side", and found their claims lacking. Science is all about finding supporting and falsifying evidence. When enough data piles up that shows previous thinking is wrong, then scientists change their mind. Look up "dark energy" if you have doubts about that. In this, I am in agreement with the American Meteorological Society, Nature magazine, and Scientific American.

Science is necessarily conservative. Once something is established as being an accepted model/theory/law, then it becomes the standard paradigm until it is shown to be flawed in a significant way. You may not like it, but in modern climatology, global warming is accepted as the standard. It's not up to me or anyone to prove it right at this point, it's up to scientists to show it's wrong. To do that you'll need a lot of really good evidence, and from what I have seen and read that evidence is not there. Maybe it's fair to say not yet there, but in reality it may not be there at all.

This has become so politicized it's hard to know what's right and what's wrong. I personally would be thrilled to find out the Earth isn't warming up. I'd like my daughter to grow up on a planet that isn't on the fast track to environmental disaster. But I have no stake in the claim scientifically either way; I don't cling to AGW because of political bent or any ideology. I think global warming is real because of the overwhelming evidence pointing that way.

I'll note that some people are still upset by my use of the term deniers. Again, to be clear: a skeptic is someone who uses evidence and logic to reach a conclusion. A denialist is someone who will say or do anything to deny an issue. I stand by my definition. There are actual global warming skeptics out there - and I would not only support their efforts but praise them - but what I see on the web and in the comments overwhelmingly is denial, not skepticism.

Joshua Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas has a lengthy post on these hacked files, which is well worth reading. He is more adamant about the icky nature of the data theft than

I am - I do see where it's wrong, but also understand that motivation is an issue, as I point out in my original post (after all, what one person calls a thieving hacker another would call a whistleblower) - but we largely agree on everything else.

Also, as predicted the comments in my original post accuse me of all sorts of horrid things, which I take in stride. I maintain that the vast majority of what I have seen claimed by the global warming deniers is simply taken out of context. Programmers and scientists complaining about software and data? Quelle horreur! Wow, we never do that.

Pbbbbt.

In conclusion: I called this a non-event because it has no real impact on global warming science or our understanding of it. Of course it has a huge impact, politically. But that's because the ideologues out there have seized on this and made as much noise as they can, so in that sense it is an issue - an issue of how political science has become, how easy it is to disrupt the process, and the effect this has had on the scientists themselves. This issue won't go away any time soon, but we need to focus on the signal, not the noise.quote>

So how about you, manticorefan get off that egotistical pedestal of yours.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[site400 12]

Majken Friss Jorgensen, operator of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, has noted that between her and her fellow limousine company rivals, over 1,200 orders for this weeks summit have been placed by various companies.

The Copenhagen airport is expecting to service over 140 private jets related to travel for the summit.

Our own government chastises the big 3 for flying in ther jets to Washington D.C. to ask for money and then they turn around and fly to a global warming "crisis" summit in private jets and rent limousine's to travel to and from...

Please......Until environmental responsibility is required of all, I'll continue sucking in as much energy as possible. Damn, it sure is cold in Washington D.C. for this time of year...hmm

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Oh, c'mon, Duke87!  You are smarter than that!  The dumbest example you could give is to emphasize you are exhaling a toxic byproduct of respiration.  "See, it isn't a health hazard because I am exhaling it so that it won't accumulate in my system!"quote>

You're missing my point.

Obviously, yes, it's being exhaled for a reason. But we're not exactly dealing with lead, particulates, or carbon monoxide here, either - things which, if uncontrolled, are a health hazard to those working in and living around the factories that produce them. Lead poisoning has caused people permanent brain damage. Too much particulate matter leads respiratory disease and cancers. Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin very easily and causes problems from lack of oxygen in the body at relatively low concentrations.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand is, relatively speaking, harmless. The air you exhale is 2-3% CO₂ and it's still safe enough to be used for CPR. It's toxicity, while not zero, is nowhere near the point where a factory emitting too much of it poses a health threat to its neighbors. So that's not it. Rather, the argument that it's a "health hazard" involves a redefining of the term. The argument, naturally, is that as a greenhouse gas it is a potential hazard to the health of the entire planet if it leads to too much warming. But that's a much broader, grander scaled issue than something being a local health hazard, which is traditionally cause for EPA regulation. It's unprecedented in that regard.

Of course, this move  isn't about public health or science, it's about politics and policy. Declaring CO₂ a health hazard is done not because it is (really, the argument that it is is quite shaky), but because doing so gives the EPA the authority to regulate it. That is the aim, nothing more.

It's like declaring that giving a lecture constitutes public broadcasting so that the FCC can regulate what the speaker can and cannot say - absurd.

Indeed, I don't like the idea that the EPA has the authority to just make such a declaration and then enforce it. It should take legislation.

Beyond that, though, practically speaking this is going to work to our detriment. From the article I linked to before:

Starting next spring, stationary pollution sources such as factories and power plants must begin using the best available emissions control technology when they build new facilities or expand existing onesquote>

In other words... more reason for industries to outsource more jobs overseas. Brilliant!

The ruling could affect refiners' plans in Ohio to re-tool their operations to handle Canadian heavy oil, said Terry Fleming, executive director of the Ohio Petroleum Council.

Fleming also predicted such regulation would force many oil companies to import more gasoline from refineries located in other nations.quote>

...case rested.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

And Boggy1, you are right on.  Nothing was "revealed" by the actions of these hackers unless you watch every second of Fox News with a baited breath.  Only conservative tools seem intent on blowing it up into more than it clearly is.quote>

First of all, stop bashing Fox News already. It achieves nothing productive.

Okay, now, with that out of the way... the leaked emails neither reveal absolutely nothing nor that there is some huge conspiracy. What they reveal is that some people in some high places did some naughty things, which casts a shadow of doubt on the whole "global warming" thing. A smoking gun it's not, but when looking at the matter from a neutral point of view, it does raise some questions.

The problem of course, is that this is political, and a neutral point of view is hard to come by. Everyone who's adamant about climate change and legislation relating to such will dismiss it as nothing. Everyone who's firmly convinced that climate change is a sham and against such legislation will latch onto it and blow it out of proportion.

Neither is correct. The reality is in between.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Okay, now, with that out of the way... the leaked emails neither reveal absolutely nothing nor that there is some huge conspiracy. What they reveal is that some people in some high places did some naughty things, which casts a shadow of doubt on the whole "global warming" thing. A smoking gun it's not, but when looking at the matter from a neutral point of view, it does raise some questions.

The problem of course, is that this is political, and a neutral point of view is hard to come by. Everyone who's adamant about climate change and legislation relating to such will dismiss it as nothing. Everyone who's firmly convinced that climate change is a sham and against such legislation will latch onto it and blow it out of proportion.

Neither is correct. The reality is in between. quote>

So  nobody will point out that even thou some of the results were "agumented" that its still a good idea to reduce carbon/smog/polution?

Or will the just jump all over the fact that some results were faked  and  were back to  square 1 trying to change the way we deal with waste.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa