Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[maure 1]

I'm afraid it's not going to happen. You see, the only way to publish would be if you were a part of the TEAM (i.e. Briffa, Mann, Schmidt, etc) and you claimed that your room was HOT last night, and that was a proof of Global Warming. Only than the TEAM woul;d allow the science journals to publish your findings. Not to mention Al Gore would give you a ring....

Funny guy, the late murray. You see, he is still holding on (for dear life) to the hallucination that _all_scientist_ agree on anything. Reread his post, it's there.

However, your point is right on. Peer-review is suspect as best and, in this case, a freaking fraud. Their testicles got caught in the cookie jar.

I think I posted this before but here it is again:

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet

(Horton R. Editorial. MJA. 2000; 172: 148-149)

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Yep. The fundamental process is flawed, having done peer reviews, had my work peer reviewed and seen others.

As long as you are following the consensus it doesn't matter. However, "climate change", like F1 has too many vested interests, funding pots and politics attached to ever allow it to be fair, objective and truthful.

[Piotr 0]

Funny guy, the late murray. You see, he is still holding on (for dear life) to the hallucination that _all_scientist_ agree on anything. Reread his post, it's there.

However, your point is right on. Peer-review is suspect as best and, in this case, a freaking fraud. Their testicles got caught in the cookie jar.

I think I posted this before but here it is again:

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet

(Horton R. Editorial. MJA. 2000; 172: 148-149)

Well, consider the fact that anybody who was ever critical of anything the Team did was sqeezed out of the peer review process. The other funny fact is that Briffa, who was an author of the scientific article to be included in the IPCC report, was also a chief editor for that section of the report. So, he simply overrode any objections to the scientific facts (e.g. McIntry's questions about data and validity of the methods) and included the article in. That way he had a "peer reviewed" article published, and dispensed with any critics. In my job, anyone doing it would be at a risk of being terminated on the spot.

[AutoRacer5 0]

Think of the implications of this. The guys could be charged with severe fraud, including misuse of govt funds, and think of the billions invested in this.

[maure 1]

Here is a quote that many should pay attention to:

'Climategate' raises far more questions than it answers, and one of the most intriguing of these is how a small group (backing a new theory, in an infant field) came to have such a huge effect on global policy making.

I have bolded and underlined the gem. The whole article come be found here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

[Piotr 0]

And this is why this thing is going away - type in "climategate" into a google - You'll get over 12,000,000 hits.

Do the same search at ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. You will get 0. Literally. The media is simply ignoring it, or just quotes the party line from RealClimate. They have absolutely no shame, no reservations, and don't worry about even a pretense of truthfulness.

Rather frustrating...

[maure 1]

Don't get frustrated. No point. The North Pole did not melt in 2008 (as they first predicted), or in 2010, 2012, 2018, or 2040. Come 2040, it will be 2099. No biggy.

Besides the media "blackout" on the climategate is like all else, amusing. The internet cannot be stopped... moreover, hasn't the head of CRU been beheaded? Geez, wonder why since the emails don't contain any incriminatory "evidence" (yes, I am laughing)... or so they say.

By the way, one of my Japanese colleagues has been "enrolled" on a "research committee" whose objective is to put together an expert report to inform the government on a new green tax on vehicles. If you wanna hear the details, let me know. It's a subject that makes me smile.

[Piotr 0]

[quote name='maure' date='02 December 2009 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1259756694' post='304872']
Don't get frustrated. No point. The North Pole did not melt in 2008 (as they first predicted), or in 2010, 2012, 2018, or 2040. Come 2040, it will be 2099. No biggy.

Besides the media "blackout" on the climategate is like all else, amusing. The internet cannot be stopped... moreover, hasn't the head of CRU been beheaded? Geez, wonder why since the emails don't contain any incriminatory "evidence" (yes, I am laughing)... or so they say.

By the way, one of my Japanese colleagues has been "enrolled" on a "research committee" whose objective is to put together an expert report to inform the government on a new green tax on vehicles. If you wanna hear the details, let me know. It's a subject that makes me smile.
[/quote]

Ok, 17,000,000 hits on google as of this am, ONE mention on CNN, Fox seems to be running with it at least occasionally, still nothing on ABC, CBS, and NBC. The warmists on blogosphere are repeating the same old mantra from RealClimate or from WH. I guess the Team is too busy doing the CYA to come up with a new spin. Hey, go on youtube and type in climategate. Really funny video titled "hiding decline."

[Quiet One 15]

Boy, those CRU guys must be the real rulers of Planet Earth. I mean, they can hide the TRUTH from all of us. Obviously, some dark powers must be pulling the strings behind.

I bet it's the Jews. I am still awaiting for my invitation to join the club of World domination but apparently being a declared atheist means I will never learn the secret handshake. Too bad, because I would have finally learnt the TRUTH about UFOs as well.

[maure 1]

Granted, Oh Quiet One, considering the sorry state of the planet, blaming the CRU seems more than fitting. After all, CRU is as spurious, corrupt, dishonest, and worthless as most politicians are.

Howevaaaaaaa, I repeat the obvious:

'Climategate' raises far more questions than it answers, and one of the most intriguing of these is how a small group (backing a new theory, in an infant field) came to have such a huge effect on global policy making.

Do pay attention this time around... and, btw, in this particular case (GW) the secret handshake involves the raising of no more than the middle finger.

[Quiet One 15]

Granted, Oh Quiet One, considering the sorry state of the planet, blaming the CRU seems more than fitting. After all, CRU is as spurious, corrupt, dishonest, and worthless as most politicians are.

Howevaaaaaaa, I repeat the obvious:

'Climategate' raises far more questions than it answers, and one of the most intriguing of these is how a small group (backing a new theory, in an infant field) came to have such a huge effect on global policy making.

Do pay attention this time around... and, btw, in this particular case (GW) the secret handshake involves the raising of no more than the middle finger.

Ok, you got me. I wasn't paying attention. I am not even paying too much attention now, because I still can't see the point of all this. I am still missing something that is obvious to you, but totally invisible to me. Here is what I think you guys are saying:

1) The CRU is cheating. (I have no idea how important the CRU and I haveno idea whether those blogs and articles are saying the truth but that would be unfair so I stick to the presumption of innocence and accept that the media are saying the truth. The CRU cheats.)

2) Ergo, the GW theory is wrong.(this is kinda shaky because I don't think the GW is based on CRU's observation, but as I honestly don't know, I will accept this premise for now)

3) Somehow, the CRU (or "the secret powers" whatever they might be) are keeping this under wraps. I still have no idea who has anything to win from this besides Al Gore. And, frankly, I don't think he is that powerful. Greenpeace? Politicians trying to appeal to the ecologists? Scientist looking for grants? Are all these guys stronger than multi national industrial complexes, anti ecologist groups and insudtrial based unions? Again, it seems shaky but who am I to tell? I accept this for now.

4) Before we move on let me stress this again: I accept that the CRU cheats. I accept the GW theory is wrong and that somebody is trying to hide this fact.

5) Here comes the tricky question: So...? What does that mean? That we should keep polluting the atmosphere? That CO2 is actually the best thing in the Universe? That high levels of radiation are your friends? (yes, I am being sarcastic but you get my point I hope): EVEN IF GW IS WRONG WE ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ENVIROMENT. So, why the hatred against GW? It won't relieve you from any responsibility. Might relief you from guilt but not much else.

I am being serious, sarcasm and all. I can't see what the antiGW people proposes to do regarding ecology. Being sarcastic is easy, even I can do that.

[Autumnpuma 0]

5) Here comes the tricky question: So...? What does that mean? That we should keep polluting the atmosphere? That CO2 is actually the best thing in the Universe? That high levels of radiation are your friends? (yes, I am being sarcastic but you get my point I hope): EVEN IF GW IS WRONG WE ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ENVIROMENT. So, why the hatred against GW? It won't relieve you from any responsibility. Might relief you from guilt but not much else.

Of course we don't pollute our planet, but we must go about our responsibility for it in an honest way. Saying CO2 is a pollutant is false. If you start off with that false premise someone, sometime, will catch you and you'll look the fool, regardless of how well-meaning you are. CO2 is a natural by-product of living beings breathing and dying. The real pollutant is CO. That creates smog, breathing problems, cancers and stunted growth in plants. If the scientific community started with CO as the culprit, then this whole issue of cleaning up our atmosphere would have gained a more honest bit of support. It still might.

Global Warming does happen; the earth has changed temperatures drastically over the billion and some odd years it's been around. Most of those drastic weather changes came long before the SUV, however, and there's decent evidence that we have a normal heat/cold cycle of about 40 years, give or take (based mostly on the sun's activity). Accepting this doesn't mean we throw the intent of the green movement out the window.

Pollution is bad and everyone will gain from energy conservation. The trick is to get there by being scientifically honest.

Oh, and to all those people that thought I was nutters because I failed to jump on the man-made global warming myth....I'm still nutters, but I'll resist the urge to say 'I told you so'.

Damn. I just did it. Ah well.........

[maure 1]

Ok, you got me. I wasn't paying attention. I am not even paying too much attention now, because I still can't see the point of all this. I am still missing something that is obvious to you, but totally invisible to me. Here is what I think you guys are saying:

1) The CRU is cheating. (I have no idea how important the CRU and I haveno idea whether those blogs and articles are saying the truth but that would be unfair so I stick to the presumption of innocence and accept that the media are saying the truth. The CRU cheats.)

2) Ergo, the GW theory is wrong.(this is kinda shaky because I don't think the GW is based on CRU's observation, but as I honestly don't know, I will accept this premise for now)

3) Somehow, the CRU (or "the secret powers" whatever they might be) are keeping this under wraps. I still have no idea who has anything to win from this besides Al Gore. And, frankly, I don't think he is that powerful. Greenpeace? Politicians trying to appeal to the ecologists? Scientist looking for grants? Are all these guys stronger than multi national industrial complexes, anti ecologist groups and insudtrial based unions? Again, it seems shaky but who am I to tell? I accept this for now.

4) Before we move on let me stress this again: I accept that the CRU cheats. I accept the GW theory is wrong and that somebody is trying to hide this fact.

5) Here comes the tricky question: So...? What does that mean? That we should keep polluting the atmosphere? That CO2 is actually the best thing in the Universe? That high levels of radiation are your friends? (yes, I am being sarcastic but you get my point I hope): EVEN IF GW IS WRONG WE ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ENVIROMENT. So, why the hatred against GW? It won't relieve you from any responsibility. Might relief you from guilt but not much else.

I am being serious, sarcasm and all. I can't see what the antiGW people proposes to do regarding ecology. Being sarcastic is easy, even I can do that.

Mr. Autumnpuma has explained it quite well.

I will say, Oh Quiet One, that theories need not stand in opposition (see, for example, Newton's and Einstein's). They can be orthogonal and/or complementary, for example. They can also postulate the same phenomena in different ways so as to serve different objectives. In short, proliferation of theories need not imply the negation or falsehood of any one or other theory.

And so, the GW theory does not require the invention of another theory in order to be shown useless. More often than not, theories hit a brick wall on their own when academics try to verify the range of phenomena the theories are supposed to account for _to_begin_with_. If a given theory _does_ account for existing (known) phenomena, then and only then (rare event), this given theory might (or might not) have value as a predictor of new phenomena, that is, phenomena not yet discovered. There lies the "prediction" factor and the ultimate value of theories. There also lies the insistence of the GW movement on forecasting the future. No predictions, no use. And let me tell you, the GW theory is a bad theory. Its assumptions are mistaken and, therefore, its predictions are of no consequence.

I will say, again, that there is nothing new in the hysteria brought about by the GW "academics". It has happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. There are many reasons for this. A researcher gathers incorrect data or gathers data incorrectly. A researcher cooks the data to fit certain assumptions or cooks assumptions in order to fit the data. And so on. Why do this? Many reasons too. Ego. Prestige. Funds. Attention. Heck, even saving one's job can be the problem if you are not able to publish sufficient papers. Academics are people (we do have our tiny hearts too, you know) and all the faults and virtues of normal people can be found in academics too... ok, perhaps academics are more vain and this vanity is, let me tell you, the source of not few of the many problems in the academia.

Ultimately, you ask, is there nothing wrong with the planet? Can we go on polluting? Etc, etc. I answer you by example. If a man is sick with a liver disease, he needs medication for his liver not for his lungs. Any theory that claims this man has a lung disease will not only _fail_ to heal him but will, in fact, create new problems or even bring about an agonizing and catastrophic end.

The key word then is caution. Get a second opinion. Then a third opinion. This is the planet we are talking about here. It is because the "GW movement" does not allow questioning and differing opinions that we academics have long ago moved on from its ramblings. If it was a theory once, it no longer is. In other words, GW is not academic anymore, it's politics.

And, btw, we are right now between glacial periods. These periods last about 100,000 years: 90,000 cold; 10,000 warm. We are about 12,000 years into this (our) particular interglacial period. So, you see, we are long due for another glacial period... the good news is that, in all honesty, no one has a fcking clue what the climate is going to be in the future so, who knows, we might enjoy this interglacial "summer" for another thousand years.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Andres, thing is that this is kinda important.

- Governments are using it to impose massive taxes. Raising money on a lie.

- Its influencing trade heavily (e.g. look at impact on airlines)

- It will have an effect on developing nations who are trying to claw their way out of poverty - industrial growth is a prime factor in development which in turn creates improvements in health, education, etc.

- Its driving the energy sector down the wrong route. There are no good, cheap, safe, reliable renewable sources of energy outside of fossil fuels

- The carbon reductions will impact on global economies, limiting growth

Ah, you will counter. It is damaging the planet. What if it isn't? CO2 is natural and many other natural sources of CO2 are massively greater than man made sources.

There are indications that if it were true, the world may not be such a bad place. Increased CO2 increases plant growth, creating greater crop yields; increases in temperatures decrease weather related deaths (less people dying of cold) - overall more people will live if global warming is true.

Also, it is interesting. Outputs from shipping and concrete production massively outweigh cars and planes. Yet why are they not taxed in the same way?

Its bad science being twisted for a political agenda. Unproven, fixed, wrong. Yet treated as fact.

And that's the bit that scares me.

[Medilloni 6]

Mike, Maure, Meani-Wan thanks, you've said everything I wanted to. Someone would have to be, well, frozen in ice for the last 10k years and just woke up if you didn't know the world's climate is going through yet another change....... but Meani-Wan, for me, your comments:

Governments are using it to impose massive taxes. Raising money on a lie.......... Its bad science being twisted for a political agenda. Unproven, fixed, wrong. Yet treated as fact.

...sum it up perfectly, and I believe are the most relevant to arguments that have gone on here.

Btw, the leaked emails and follow up crap is all over the Beeb this morning, but I think it will take more than this for a major re-think by any governments - too much humble pie to eat

[Max Mosley 2]

Here are a list of facts that seem pertinent to me.

1) The vast majority of scientists accept the man-made global warming theory. This doesn't prove anything but it does suggest there are pretty strong scientific arguments in favour of the theory. And anyone trying to explain the consensus away through bias must show how such a massive consensus of experts could form around a theory that, apparently, any medical doctor could see through.

2) Quite a few GW-sceptics can't admit fact number 1. This suggests they either don't understand primary school arithmetic or are only reading what they want to be true. Either way, we should hardly trust what they say on state of the art climate-modelling.

3) If global warming is wrong, the costs of taking action will fall mainly on rich or rapidly-developing countries, and will be relatively modest - perhaps around 2% of GDP for Britain.

4) On the other hand, if the climate does change dramatically, the costs will fall mainly on the poorest people in the world, and will be devastating for them. A small rise in average temperature could be catastrophic in Africa; likewise a small rise in average sea level for Bangladesh; etc.

5) Taxes in Britain have hardly risen at all (yet) due to GW as far as I know. Labour raised taxes but not really for climate change.

[maure 1]

My dear late Murray, you still have to prove that such a consensus exists... and, no, you are not helping yourself by writing things like "the vast majority of scientists". Even a small majority would do. Hell, even a minority would do if the facts were there. They are not.

The 2nd point you make follows from your own _belief_ that such a consensus exists. It doesn't.

The 3rd point is also left for you to prove. India and China are among the four "major" pollutants. They are not "rich countries".

The 4th point goes nowhere. The climate can, might, perhaps will change but... so what? None of this proves the change is provoked by humanity. You see? You still need to prove that.

The 5th point might be true for Britain but not for long (if the GW fanatics get their way) and cannot be exported to other countries. As I pointed out earlier, a Japanese colleague of mine is, as we speak, putting together an "expert report" to advise the government on a new green tax on vehicles. It is a gimmick to raise taxes and that the poor will suffer the most for. Not me. Not my colleague. But the working guy that, with a fifth of our salary, has to support a family even though he owns only one car. I own three. My Japanese colleague owns seven (not a joke). The new green tax will mean nothing for the wealthy but will mean a huge burden for the common folk.

[Quiet One 15]

Ahhh, now I see what really worries you. The problem with these issues is that usually one has more fun being sarcastic at the other side's view (I know I had in my previous post) than being actually clear about what is our point. Complaining about GW's impact on taxes is understandable. Spewing hatred towards it because Al Gore is a clown is not.

I am too tired and these discussions need too much effort to achieve some minimal common grounds between both sides, so I will just say this:

- The main recomendation you make is to be cautious and responsible when throwing these theories because they could be used to manipulate the people or increase taxes. That's ok. But caution works both ways. If GW is based on wrong/farfetched data, messing with the earth's ecology still calls for caution and responsibility. You have no idea whether the loads of CO2 (or lead, or whatever we keep spewing into our ecosystem) affects it as a whole.

Anal-orgy: Aristotle was one of the first true scholars in history and had a lot of brilliant intuitions and even more brilliant theories about almost everything. One of them was NOT his observation that the brain's function was merely to cool down blood, as a sort of heat sink (which is only valid for Eddie Jordan and a couple of other people). When they found that brain might be not just a heat sink it didn't mean everybody should happily start hammering brains. They knew it was useful, even before finding exactly what for (we still are trying to).

So, the morals of this rambling is: whether you think GW is just a way of making useful idiots from us to support taxes or whatever, do not let yourselves become useful idiots for people which makes loads of money out of ruining the planet. As long as we all agree on this, we can still prance around naked in the other thread, in peace!

[maure 1]

First image... that's what the GW "theory" has become. As I said quite early on, you cannot force _everyone_ to lie. There are many fields that have nothing to do with GW yet require accurate historical climate data (from paleontology to you-name-it).

Regarding the planet, second image... it's cute (and all) but it hurts too, doesn't it? If there is a god, we are all going to hell only on account on how we treat our fellow creatures. Whatever god will not need to judge us on any other issue. That alone will do. Hell for us all.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ah Andres accept your point but there are two issues here:

1) Is GW actually happening? Most of the debate centres around this

2) what are the impacts of CW - this gets glossed over and it is assumed that we are heading into a thermageddon a poxy-clipse

2) Is the one that annoys me most.

There is scientific evidence that some of the effects of global warming (if indeed it might happen) might be positive. Two examples I gave earlier. There are more.

Now sea levels might rise. This will be mildly irritating if you are living on a speck of coral in the Pacific. However it is not unusual for sea levels to change which they do regularly throughout history. And you know what? Every time this has happened man has adapted, moved. We're still all here so they must have done it pretty well in the past....

The fundamental incorrect notion is that the earth, its atmosphere and oceans are in stasis. They are not, never will be.

The other rather concerning thing is the amount of money spent on GW. If this was about saving the planet, why not invest the billions into creating nature reserves, preventing pollution, dealing with world hunger, eradicating malaria-carrying mosquitos, providing clean water for the vast majority of the world's population that do not have it and trying to prevent AIDS in Africa which is killing millions. But we do not? Ask yourself why?

So what do we do instead? Change lightbulbs. Avoid lamb because sheep fart more and stick in fields of wind turbines that are inefficient and that have to be backed up by guess what? Gas fired power stations which create more CO2.... pathetic really.

Its a giant eco-con.

[maure 1]

And the reason why it was Thatcher who got the ball rolling on the GW thingy in order to push her nuclear energy agenda (cleaner than most by far). Irony made history once again.

[maure 1]

Amusing coincidence, Al Gore has more to say...

The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/3

And, then, the cherry on top:

Is Al Gore Getting Rich Off of the Green Movement?

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/is-al-gore-getting-rich-off-of-the-green-movement/?scp=4&sq=al%20gore&st=cse

Smile with me. You know it's good for you.

[Quiet One 15]

Ah Andres accept your point but there are two issues here:

1) Is GW actually happening? Most of the debate centres around this

I think it does. Murray is better at explaining why than I am. But anything we say will eventually fall again in the "what does consensus mean?" endless loop, and it's boring. Just google up "global warming". Look at the sites that agree on it. Compare them with the sites that deny it. If you think that the Climate Research Group of the University of East Anglia is powerful enough to convince the EPA, NASA, United Nations, WHO, UNESCO and most top scientific and non guvernamental organizations of their scam, but you can't believe that www.globalwarmingscam.org might be lying or being too biased against the theory, then it is hard to achieve a consensus among ourselves, much less comprehend that probably any government will make a lot more profit from supporting oil companies and polluting industries than taxing you with a 1% tax on your farting (unless you fart too much...but I disgress...)

Anyways, like I said before, I accept that CRU was lying and manipulating data and I am ready to accept that the GW theory might be, in effect, wrong or way too alarmist once prestigious organizations of the aforementioned level do that. And no, I don't care if they are not scientific organizations and are run by greedy politicians. Anti GW groups are also backed by greedy politicians so that is not an argument against GW. In absence of my own capability of first hand knowledge and/or capacity to prove or disprove the theory, I must follow the consensus and the arguments they give, as long as they are not against logic. Pollution is bad, who can deny it? The greenhouse effect is something everybody has tried in their high school projects so it exists as well. The unpredictability of climate is true, but that is not a carte blanche to mess with the ecosystem.

2) what are the impacts of CW - this gets glossed over and it is assumed that we are heading into a thermageddon a poxy-clipse

2) Is the one that annoys me most.

There is scientific evidence that some of the effects of global warming (if indeed it might happen) might be positive. Two examples I gave earlier. There are more.

Now sea levels might rise. This will be mildly irritating if you are living on a speck of coral in the Pacific. However it is not unusual for sea levels to change which they do regularly throughout history. And you know what? Every time this has happened man has adapted, moved. We're still all here so they must have done it pretty well in the past....

So, GW tells you that the poles might melt (north and south. Kubica probably won't) which will not mean that my socks will get a little wet but more like my feet will get a little wet if I live at the top of a 10 story building or 700 miles west from where I live now. Yet you are ready to make me take that chance because it annoys you to pay a <how much extra tax you pay due to GW?>. I tell you this: It is not unusual for taxes to change and they do regularly through history. And you know what? Every time this has happened man has adapted, moved. We're still all here so they must have done pretty well in the past...

Sorry, but if the two options are "risk an ecosystem collapse or raise Meanie Winnie's taxes" you don't give me many choices

The fundamental incorrect notion is that the earth, its atmosphere and oceans are in stasis. They are not, never will be.

The other rather concerning thing is the amount of money spent on GW. If this was about saving the planet, why not invest the billions into creating nature reserves, preventing pollution, dealing with world hunger, eradicating malaria-carrying mosquitos, providing clean water for the vast majority of the world's population that do not have it and trying to prevent AIDS in Africa which is killing millions. But we do not? Ask yourself why?

So what do we do instead? Change lightbulbs. Avoid lamb because sheep fart more and stick in fields of wind turbines that are inefficient and that have to be backed up by guess what? Gas fired power stations which create more CO2.... pathetic really.

Its a giant eco-con.

Gas fired power stations? Not here at least. We are moving towards Hydroelectric or Eolic power and yes, even Nuclear. And yes, each one comes with their own problems. Hydro power has upset all the rivers flood/drougght cycles and deprived them of most of the nutrients and fauna they usually carry. Nuclear...well, we know the problems of nuclear waste disposal and such. Eolic seems the most harmless yet they already found they might have an impact on some birds migrational routes. The world is very very complex and unpredictable. That is why GW might be wrong, for example. We barely understand the relationships among the earth and all living things. Desertification processes in Africa has effects on America. The use of a seemingly perfect cooling product by the start of XXth century became one of the causes of the thining in the ozone layer...we have no idea what we are messing with. If you want to be anti GW, go ahead, be. But don't come telling me that it's ok to do anything else but careful when messing with our planet. And so far we are more concerned about destroying it than understanding it.

[maure 1]

Oh Quiet One, do you know where lies the origin of the myth of dragons? You know, the fact that people once thought dragons actually existed? In dinosaur fossils. That's right. Fossils have been around for some 60 million of years and folks have come across them many times across the ten of thousands of years we've been around (I mean "we" as people as capable as us). How did our ancestors explain fossils? The answer is _dragons_ (among other monstrous creatures).

How about witches? Were their powers real? Actually, yes. Witches were drug dealers or, more precisely, drug collectors and manufacturers. You went to a witch and asked for a spell. The witch gave you some odd mixture made with some funky obscure elements she made sure to mention when, in all truth, all you've got from her were some funny mushrooms. Imagine how the unsuspecting victim would behave... yes, as if possessed. And what about a love potion? Here is some X-alike for you.

You are chasing dragons under the spell of witches. It all seems real. It all seems to fit. Yet, it is all in your head my friend... and, guess what, it is a _bad_trip_ to boot.

There is no proof of anything GW climate related. There are theories, yes. But theories don't amount to anything simply on account of their formulation. They must work. This one doesn't as proven by the fact that their predictions have not come to pass. Delaying predictions 40 or 100 years (today's tactics after many fckups) is helping them naught.

[Piotr 0]

I think it does. Murray is better at explaining why than I am. But anything we say will eventually fall again in the "what does consensus mean?" endless loop, and it's boring. Just google up "global warming". Look at the sites that agree on it. Compare them with the sites that deny it. If you think that the Climate Research Group of the University of East Anglia is powerful enough to convince the EPA, NASA, United Nations, WHO, UNESCO and most top scientific and non guvernamental organizations of their scam, but you can't believe that www.globalwarmingscam.org might be lying or being too biased against the theory, then it is hard to achieve a consensus among ourselves, much less comprehend that probably any government will make a lot more profit from supporting oil companies and polluting industries than taxing you with a 1% tax on your farting (unless you fart too much...but I disgress...)

Anyways, like I said before, I accept that CRU was lying and manipulating data and I am ready to accept that the GW theory might be, in effect, wrong or way too alarmist once prestigious organizations of the aforementioned level do that. And no, I don't care if they are not scientific organizations and are run by greedy politicians. Anti GW groups are also backed by greedy politicians so that is not an argument against GW. In absence of my own capability of first hand knowledge and/or capacity to prove or disprove the theory, I must follow the consensus and the arguments they give, as long as they are not against logic. Pollution is bad, who can deny it? The greenhouse effect is something everybody has tried in their high school projects so it exists as well. The unpredictability of climate is true, but that is not a carte blanche to mess with the ecosystem.

So, GW tells you that the poles might melt (north and south. Kubica probably won't) which will not mean that my socks will get a little wet but more like my feet will get a little wet if I live at the top of a 10 story building or 700 miles west from where I live now. Yet you are ready to make me take that chance because it annoys you to pay a <how much extra tax you pay due to GW?>. I tell you this: It is not unusual for taxes to change and they do regularly through history. And you know what? Every time this has happened man has adapted, moved. We're still all here so they must have done pretty well in the past...

Sorry, but if the two options are "risk an ecosystem collapse or raise Meanie Winnie's taxes" you don't give me many choices

Gas fired power stations? Not here at least. We are moving towards Hydroelectric or Eolic power and yes, even Nuclear. And yes, each one comes with their own problems. Hydro power has upset all the rivers flood/drougght cycles and deprived them of most of the nutrients and fauna they usually carry. Nuclear...well, we know the problems of nuclear waste disposal and such. Eolic seems the most harmless yet they already found they might have an impact on some birds migrational routes. The world is very very complex and unpredictable. That is why GW might be wrong, for example. We barely understand the relationships among the earth and all living things. Desertification processes in Africa has effects on America. The use of a seemingly perfect cooling product by the start of XXth century became one of the causes of the thining in the ozone layer...we have no idea what we are messing with. If you want to be anti GW, go ahead, be. But don't come telling me that it's ok to do anything else but careful when messing with our planet. And so far we are more concerned about destroying it than understanding it.

Lemmie chime in for an instant. The "consensus" comes from AlGore citing a study by a, I believe, historian, who used 986 articles written between 1998 and 2003 to determine that almost all of them agreed as to anthropogenic global warming existence. The criteria of this study were very broad and really rather faulty, but none of the warmists was interested in details. So, somebody else (the name escapes me) repeated the same study, using the same criteria, do determine the state of consensus for over 550 scientific articles written and published between 2003 and 2008. The result was roughly 55% against AGW and 45% for it with ONE article predicting dire consequences. This study did not receive any wide recognition (because of the "faulty premise" - identical to the 1998-2003 study!).

Now, all of the organisations you mentioned received TENS of millions of dollars to research global warming. The reasearch is lead by a group of a total of 50-60 scientist that form so called "hockey stick team" or a Team, for short. These guys essentially monopolized the climate research, and were largely responsible for the last 3 IPCC reports (as in they were in charge of writing it).

All of the AGW science rests really on very few studies conducted to day by, you guessed it, the Team. The members of the Team include Jim Hanson of NASA (solely responsible for NASA's climate reasearch), Michael Mann of PennState (author of long-debunked "hockey stick" made famous by AlGore movie), Keith Briffa of the Hadley Institute, and Phil Jones of CRU (yes, the guy that just stepped down). In addition, the Team is cheered on by several individuals including the head of NOAA (her name escapes me) and the head of the Met Office in England. The data used for the climate studies comes from a few very selected sources, controlled by the Team members (remember, it's only about 50 people). CRU is one of maybe 4 or 5 institutions that is recognized as the leader in AGW. More importantly, most of the scientific papers COMPLETELY rely on the Team data AND PREVIOUS STUDIES. For instance, there were only FIVE independent studies resulting in a "hockey stick" temperature distribution, ALL CONDUCTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM. Two were conducted by Mann, one by Briffa.

Now, the climategate revealed that Hanson, Briffa, Jones, Mann, and other LEADERS of the Team engaged in coverup and active censorship of any studies that disputed AGW. the methods included intimidation and active blackmailing (via boycott) of any scientific journals daring to publish studies disputing AGW.

As to the famous IPCC "the science is settled" reports, the CRU e-mails suggest that the Team actively removed any reviewers disagreeing with their findings. Moreover, if you heard argument that AGW studies were "peer reviewed", well apparently peer reviewers of the studies completed by the Team came from... the Team members! so, essentially the Team "peer reviewed" their own studies.

As to your question who profits from propaganda of AGW, I suggest you google "shell company" and "carbon credits." You'll be surprised who stands to make BILLIONS $$$ on carbon credit trading. Hint - I'm sure their gasoline is in your car today.