Global Warming

[85suited 0]

I could also find five that say the ice is has grown over the last year or two and that means the whole thing is a hoax. The reality....I would rather be safe than sorry. It's worth paying attention to and it is worth trying to reduce pollution.

Agreed Cane - but we should not hurry thru legislation that will radically change our economy and push more and more industry out of the US until there is a full debate on the issue. Up unitl now, no one would listen to the 30,000 US scientist who don't agree

[brvheart 1,752]

I could also find five that say the ice is has grown over the last year or two and that means the whole thing is a hoax. The reality....I would rather be safe than sorry. It's worth paying attention to and it is worth trying to reduce pollution. of course, obviously every scientist who believes in climate change is lying as part of a vast geeky conspiracy and every skeptic is noble and honest even the ones working for Exxon.

So you recommend we do nothing and just hope future us will be able to save us from the comet? I think that strategy is going to be a hard sell.

You guys are finally coming around. The issue isn't that we don't believe global warming is possible, but it's that the data is false. And it's just not smart to make policy that will destroy our economy based on nothing. There is no need to rush legislation through that can wait a short term period, while we gather real data on the issue. Remember that 0.26% is the only effect that humans are causing right now. We have a little time.

[hblask 1]

The reality....I would rather be safe than sorry. It's worth paying attention to and it is worth trying to reduce pollution.

This seems to be the new rallying cry in light of recent evidence. A year ago it was "there is no doubt, this is real". Interesting change.Anyway, the saying "I'd rather be safe than sorry" is a bit meaningless. The economic reality is that waiting to see what happens is how a rational person would prefer to be safe than sorry. Spending a trillion now to save a million 100 years from now is not "better safe than sorry", it's "better sorry than sorry".If the AGW scenario was "do something now, life goes on without changes; don't do something, life on earth is wiped out overnight on some random day in the next hundred years", then it would probably be justifiable to spend vast amounts of money to avert the problem. The reality is that neither half is true -- life will change no matter what we do, and any changes will be on the order of decades, and will only affect small areas as they occur. Additionally, there would be many positive effects that need to be added in. For example, one of the global warming scare stories is about all the additional heat deaths, but the number of deaths from cold far exceeds those from heat, so worldwide, it is likely that the moderate winters would save thousands of lives each year. Also, new areas of farmland would become productive, making more food available worldwide, saving even more lives. Somehow, though the AGW theorists seem to focus on polar bear deaths and other symbolic threats that have very little to do with quality of life or human safety.

[SCYUKON 0]

This seems to be the new rallying cry in light of recent evidence. A year ago it was "there is no doubt, this is real". Interesting change.

QFTHappy as well to see some of the mainstream media coming around a small bit in the reporting of this issue. God bless CBC's Rex Murphy.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well polar bears are the most fierce creatures in the arctic, responsible for the deaths of more humans than any other bear.so to say that this has nothing to do with human safety is a bit off.

[85suited 0]

BBC Exposes 'Fudge Factor' in ClimateGate Global Warming Computer Programming CodeBy Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)December 5, 2009 - 11:46 ET Even the BBC didn't let this scoop get away.A segment on the Dec. 3 broadcast of BBC's "Newsnight," showed the implications of the story behind the so-called "ClimateGate" scandal are more than just e-mails concealing data, but an incompetence analyzing the data by way of faulty computer code.John Graham-Cumming, a British programmer known for the open source "POPFile email filtering program" explained how the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had wholesale problems with its computer programming analyzing climate change data, with billion, if not even trillions of dollars, on the line."This is the source code from the Climatic Research Unit," Susan Watts, science editor at the BBC explained. "John Graham-Cumming is a software engineer. He's not a skeptic on climate change, but he is shocked by what he's seen in the programming. He compared it with the code in the same language written by NASA."Graham-Cumming criticized the CRU programming for its lack of professionalism and showed faults with it."Well, if you look at the NASA stuff, it's really professional," Graham-Cumming said. "You can look at it, you can see the history. If you look at -- what's done here by these alleged CRU files - it's not the thing you'd expect to see in certainly a commercial industry. You would not see this sort of source code because it's not clearly documented. There's not audit history of what's happened to it. So it would be below the standard in any commercial software. "According to the author of "The Geek Atlas," the programmer even included steps to skip over errors, which shows some of the data analyzed by the East Anglia CRU is completely neglected."The programming language actually has a problem," Graham-Cumming said. "And they put in some code to deal with that error. Unfortunately, in doing so they produced another error. And the upshot of this is the error occurs - the underlying error, they will skip over data that they're trying to plot without any warning to the end user. So in some sense there is data that is being lost."The programmer, unnamed in the BBC segment, even documented his lack of programming skills."So in here, he says some things like, 'Something is very wrong - it's my programming ability, isn't it,'" Graham-Cumming explained. "'You know, once again, it's further confirmation my abilities are below what is required here.'"Watts questioned if someone was betting billions or trillions of dollars, should they "be comfortable with" it and Graham-Cumming explained it wasn't."I don't think I would be comfortable with that because it is not obvious what it is doing, why it is doing it," Graham-Cumming

[strategy 4]

.

[colonel Feathers 5]

It is not a coincidence that more lawyers than not love the concept of global warming.Lawsuits galore.

[vbnautilus 48]

And it's just not smart to make policy that will destroy our economy based on nothing.

Destroy our economy?Speaking of fearmongering...The question is not whether we should "destroy our economy" based on "nothing", but rather whether we should make some economic sacrifices based on a analysis of risk.

This seems to be the new rallying cry in light of recent evidence. A year ago it was "there is no doubt, this is real". Interesting change.

I've never held the position that there is no doubt. And while certain politicians have held that position, I don't think any scientist would tell you that.

[hblask 1]

I've never held the position that there is no doubt. And while certain politicians have held that position, I don't think any scientist would tell you that.

We had a lengthy thread about a year ago where the global warming people INSISTED there was no doubt anymore, that this was settled science, like gravity and magnetism. This was not just one person, there were LOTS of people who said that. Very few say that anymore.

[Balloon guy 158]

We had a lengthy thread about a year ago where the global warming people INSISTED there was no doubt anymore, that this was settled science, like gravity and magnetism. This was not just one person, there were LOTS of people who said that. Very few say that anymore.

Think this was the meeting where they made these claims

[CaneBrain 95]

It is not a coincidence that more lawyers than not love the concept of global warming.Lawsuits galore.

wat?

[85suited 0]

the font seems to suggest that you editorialized a little there at the end

nope just didnt get everything in the same font... wish it was that sinister

[strategy 4]

.

[85suited 0]

those big law firms... they write everything offI once added a line to the end of my friend's research paper on an asian filmmaker: "Akira Kurosawa is clearly an asian." Luckily he proofed it before turning it in.

now thats comedy

[SCYUKON 0]

A very good discussion here of what the "trick" actually is and how it was applied.http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/und...egates_hid.htmlI cannot get enough of this stuff. Santa sure came early this year. And that Al Gore cancelled his Copenhagen speaking engagement on top of all this. Clammed up quicker than Tiger Bunny #2 with a payout in hand.

[akoff 0]

Al is now busy inventing a new communication system that is going to render the interweb useless...

[nutzbuster 7]

lol at 1200 limos and 200 private planes this week into Copenhagen.And it's snowing in Arizona. Wake up people...

[dabetka 0]

lol at 1200 limos and 200 private planes this week into Copenhagen.And it's snowing in Arizona. Wake up people...

But, I mean, Al Gore... He wouldn't lie to us just to make $$$......er???

[SCYUKON 0]

As expected, when the "mainstream" media did jump on board, it was to apply some whitewash. The Campbell Brown special tonight "Truth or Trick" was setup to appear balanced, but low and behold, Oppenheim from Princeton was invited to the studio while MacIntire and the Lawyer dude skeptic were satellited in. Guess who got the most airtime. And Campbell was so slanted she is going to need an orthotic in one shoe to fix her stance.Definitely not award winning tv tonight.And yes, LOL at the Limos and Jets. Bigger CO2 footprint in two weeks than Denmark has in a year. Nice.

[SCYUKON 0]

One piece of good news from this though. Apparently Phil Jones is quite distraught and perhaps even physically ill over all of this. Maybe scared of jail?

[SCYUKON 0]

..

[SCYUKON 0]

This fellow from cbs did much better. Lots of great links in this article including members of the American Physicists looking to get a petition removing their endorsement of global warming as a man made phenomena.http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/07/ta...ry5925940.shtml

[strategy 4]

.

[SCYUKON 0]

you seem to have a pretty big emotional investment in the global warming debate.

Been a bit of an obsession for a while now. Quite frankly, it has been terrifying to see how quickly many of the governments of the world jumped on board in recent years, eager to spend trillions of dollars, to combat something that had so little documented truth. We would have new cancer drugs, and a cure for just about everything, if the level of scientific rigor acceptable for climate models was considered acceptable for the treatment of deadly diseases. I mean, we would laugh a research group out of the room if they came back to us and said, hey look, we injected some lab rats with cancer cells, and also fed them cheese. They then developed terminal cancer. So the science is settled that cheese must cause cancer. People know a hell a lot more about cheese and cancer than what they do know about climate models, so they are willing to accept the word of the "experts" in one scenario but would outright dismiss it as ludicrous in another. To see that an agency (the IPCC) could wield so much power, and how easily the politicians were swayed by this "sexy" issue, was quite astounding to me. Also very disappointed to see how unobjective mainstream media really is (never noticed it so much before) as the guy on the street seems to get most, if not all, of his opinion from the evening news.So I am quite eager to see how all of this will unfold in coming months and years, now that the chinks in the armor are getting ripped open layer by layer.