Climategate

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Zeal, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    You don't get how these predictions work. Short-term, very exact weather-pattern predictions are hard to get right because tiny mistakes and inaccuracies evolve into larger and larger deviations from the actual patterns. This does not mean we don't understand the weather, because we have a very good grasp of how the weather works and interacts.
    However, those exact weather-patterns are irrelevant for the long-term global warming everyone is talking about. Because those aren't dependent on what happens exactly in weather patterns, they're dependent on large-scale tendencies. You only need to know general cause-and-effect rules to predict long-term tendencies.
     
  2. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    Why, that's like taking advice from a poker playing drum machine boy. No offense, Sander. You know I like you. :wink:

    It's just that after all my reading and viewing and listening, I'm really convinced that this is just another media fed hoax, just one of bigger proportions than, say, the swine flu or ebola.



    :D
     
  3. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    Yeah Alec, but you expect that from polititians...

    Using "science" as a political tool is the real danger of entering a surreal reality, like we have seen in some countries/places/time in history..

    And i mean about the history of Humanity, since its dawn.
     
  4. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    here is my biggest problem with the models.

    they over-estimate CO2 effect on the greenhouse effect, and cannot model clouds correctly.

    they say that if CO2 emissions increase 1% a year for 100 years, we will have complete ecological disaster based on these models that in reality are not very accurate in the long term.

    we KNOW historically that CO2 levels have been upwards of 2,000 and 3,000 PPM, and even as high as 7,000 PPM. whereas currently we are at about 380 PPM for CO2. what happens to these models when you run these models figuring 3,000 PPM of CO2... what happens then? what about at 4,000 PPM... my guess is that they would fall apart and cry for their mommy. and yet we know for a fact that that amount of CO2 and higher has been present in our atmosphere.

    thats one thing i do not see people doing on these climatological models. my guess is because if they did that, the models would emulate a climate that would be impossible.
     
  5. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    Err... have you noticed where you are? :p
     
  6. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    Yes 500 millions of years ago, when life forms were so far from the current ones that they were mostly living in water, we saw CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM. I don't really see what's that's supposed to imply.

    We are humans and as such are concerned with our own survival. We don't give a shit about how the earth would go or hase gone without us, we just want to stay. As for the human period, it never saw CO2 levels as high as they are know. This is a good reason to be cautious.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
     
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Question is, what happens if we are wrong and CO2 actualy has not the dramatic effect on weather and earth as like we might assume? We loost some industry here and there which wasted fossil fuel.

    But what if it suddenly happens to be true that CO2 is a great damage and we refused to do anything in the long run ...


    What ever if people are right or wrong with the CO2 and global warming. I think we have a bit to much to loose to not at least consider it and try working in every way possbile to save the enviroment what ever it needs, which include not just to reduce CO2 production but stop any kind of damage we do to the world.

    Its actualy not just CO2 and the industry and issues around. Its actualy the lack of interest and waste of recources in general which should make one cautious. As long people still need to eat strawberies in winter that have to be imported by plane from South America (or where ever), or waste water for useless tasks jujst to make cheap products like T-shirts in India and other third world nations, I doubt we will see any change in the future and less polution. Dont need any big math or statistics to know that things have to stop.
     
  8. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    aronax...

    did you read the notes on that graph?

    but do not say specifically how it would look different.

    makes me wonder, as it looks a lot like the "hockey stick" graph...

    currently the climatological model impact of CO2 is currently used by IPCC of 2.5%.

    i have seen a lot of criticisim of that # being used. if you look at the IPCC reports on the accuracy of the models, they admit that the 2.5% is most likely an over-estimation, but with CO2 being at 2.5% it helps the models be able to back-test more accurately.

    so due to the modeling ability of clouds is incorrect, they make up for some of it by over-estimating the value of some GHGs, most noteably CO2.

    which the IPCC then says that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming based on those models.

    its cyclical logic at best, and a horrible scientific practice at worst.
     
  9. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
     
  10. Kahgan

    Kahgan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Nov 25, 2003
    Great. Let's all get an SUV now, it's obviously not bad for the environment.
     
  11. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    How the hell does it correlates?

    Bad science = we can destroy env?
     
  12. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    no, its called something like

    ad absurdium or like ad infinitium argument or something...

    you have to expect mods/admins to sometimes troll arguments from time to time.
     
  13. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
  14. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    Hahahaha.... telegraph.co.uk
    There is a point you know a source is so biased in one direction or another, it's not even interesting reading the actual content.
    telegraph.co.uk is well beyond that point.

    It's a f*ing propaganda war, but there's only one thing clear : we have nothing to lose in reducing our impact on the planet (apart from a few % of growth). It's just about securing environmentally friendly growth for the future.

    On the other hands, what perspective can bring scepticism and conspiracy theories ?
    Here is it : we could one day hit the wall if we keep modifying the earth environmental balance towards what it was when dinosaurs where living on the planet. Tip : our organism is different and it's not sure we could survive.

    You probably know as much as me in science what we call "precautionary principle".
    It means that if you don't know what would be the consequences of an action, but there is a good chance it will be bad for every single human on the planet, you DON'T DO IT.
     
  15. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    ok, what are other sources stance on the subject? AFAIK at least 16 "sources" in the 2007 report have been discovered to be quoted incorrectly ( and at least on 1 occasion was mis-quoted purposefully) , are not peer reviewed, have not been verified in the least

    you are right, it is a propaganda war, and so far either you believe in global warming/climate change apocalyptic scenarios, or you are uneducated imbecile. hell, the IPCC is having problems propaganda in favor of it, so they are making shit up at this point.

    we know the environment and the planet can handle having massive amounts of more GHGs in the atmosphere.

    we know the environment and the planet can NOT handle having NO greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. that would lead to collapse of the greenhouse effect. before "man" started pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, other than water they were at record lows.

    so, here is the question for you, at what point of greenhouse gases would the greenhouse effect collapse? if it collapses at one point on the earth, either it would repair itself pretty quickly, stay as it is, or else lead to a domino effect where the area increases and the earth loses the greenhouse effect. and i think that would damage life on the planet far far more than having too many.

    well, i can tell you the consequence of having no greenhouse gases. that would be the collapse of our environment on the planet. and that is where we were heading.
     
  16. 34thcell

    34thcell Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    333
    Sep 22, 2008
    :shock: Humanity saved the planet!? WOW!

    EDIT: Sorry is there some sarcasm or irony that I'm missing here?
     
  17. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Moving to no greenhouse gases is neither a goal nor a possibility. Why are you throwing this straw man out there?

    We know that the planet won't magically disappear and that life won't either.
    What we do not know is if it would still be a planet anywhere near as suited for human habitation.
     
  18. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    ArrOnax, lets all the countries in the world unite in the construction of mega underground vaults, in case we get hit by an asteroid, the probability is way more than being flooded or burned alive. ;)

    To be on the safe side ofc...

    "Edit: I suggest Bastiat on the problems of what is seen and what is not seen in economic planning.

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html"

    "Questions over awards given by world's top climate scientist
    The research institute run by the head of the UN’s climate body has handed out a series of environmental awards to companies that have given it financial support, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ds-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html

    yes, telegraph is the one journal that actively fights the hoax, but since there is only one truth, we cant all be biased right? One side must be right...

    But is far from being the only one:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-money.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html - evil exxonzor

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    It makes me laugh when someone says Exxon gave 23 mil USA dollars to non AGW research during the last two decades, which is small fry compared to just(JUST) what the USA spent over the same time, 123 mil USA dollars to support AGW. And even so we get the data we know from IPCC...

    Anyway, as said, megacorporations have only to gain with cap-and-trade...

    Edit: At least not all are bad news:



    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/80485-climate-bill-buried-under-record-snowfall

    "Record snowfall has buried Washington — and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year."

    "“It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments,” said Bingaman, who as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction over energy and climate change issues."

    Damm you empirical data, going against SCIENCE!!
     
  19. Dead Guy

    Dead Guy Senate Board Director oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Nov 9, 2008
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
     
  20. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    Again. We are humans. We don't care about the planet itself, we care about us.
    NO, we DON'T know if the human could handle a climate with massive amounts of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, because it never happened during our timeframe.

    End of the argument as far as I'm concerned : please refrain from fucking up the balance of gases if you don't have a clue about what it could cause.

    That's the principle of precaution, and since we share an atmosphere together, I would like you to apply it and not fuck everything up.

    You do realize that reinventing the industry is about a lot more than global warming, do you ?

    And, yeah, it's really a shame we are researching technologies to consume less ressources and energy.
    I mean, it could eventually give the possibility to everyone on the planet to lead the same occidental energy-whore way-of-life as you and me, and the whole thing would be sustainable at the planet scale. What a dumb idea, right ?

    I suppose you don't care you consume easily 4 times the energy you could consume with the proper technologies applied. After all, all this is already granted to you, isn't it ? I mean, the system you're bashing is already mouth-feeding all this to you, right ?

    Also : Al Gore didn't invent all his thematics, nor did he brainwash anyone. All he did was summarize other works on the subjet. You know, works such as actual research, for example. Maybe try to get some information about the "Club of Rome", the books "Limits to growth", or concepts like "Ecological footprint". So you can dilute your fixation on Al Gore...

    It could also help you to separate concepts like global warming and more general problematics like sustainable growth, which is about a lot more than just reducing CO2 emissions.