Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Climate Change Thread
#36
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector
View Post
I'm looking for the opinions of the CHUD faithful on this. I think we need to look forward and try to find new technologies for power generation. Even if you don't believe in Peak Oil, we cannot sustain the current levels of growth.

So...again...how do we maintain what we have, let alone grow? Or will there be the Great Culling?

Who says we need to "grow"?

That's one thing I haven't understood - the entire economic model is based on "growth" - here in the US and Western Europe, do we really need "more" of anything?

I think a large part of the problem is that we need to re-jigger priorities and assumptions regarding our current way of life.

Following that, THEN you make changes based on the new paradigm.
Reply
#37
Quote:

Originally Posted by nekkerbee
View Post
What does France do with its nuclear waste?

I bet they just send it to Algeria. "Is big desert, no one will know!"
Reply
#38
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chavez
View Post
I bet they just send it to Algeria. "Is big desert, no one will know!"

Or Kazakhstan.
Reply
#39
Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios
View Post
Yep. Green tech isn't being sold correctly in the US. It may sound crass but I really think a slogan like: "Go green or continue to pay through the nose to suck Arab dick" would get the point across to the part of the population still skeptical about this.

The bulk of our oil comes from the Americas, Canada being our top importer of oil. Not to mention, with the massive discovery of oil off our coasts combined with the huge discoveries in Brazil, we won't be sucking any arab dick for quite some time...
Reply
#40
Notice the wording on my post. I said being sold. This isn't the actual reason I want the west to go full steam ahead with developing green tech.
Reply
#41
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
The bulk of our oil comes from the Americas, Canada being our top importer of oil. Not to mention, with the massive discovery of oil off our coasts combined with the huge discoveries in Brazil, we won't be sucking any arab dick for quite some time...

Reply
#42
Well, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is suing NASA and GISS about Gavin Schmidt's activities on RealClimate.

The claim:
Quote:

[CEI seeks documents] relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files and expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This, and the related political activism engaged in, are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

Reply
#43
The man I helped elect proves once again he's the smartest man in the room...House or Senate!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-climate-pact/
Reply
#44
Solutions to these climate change problems are being sold back to us, in the form of advertised recyclable products and the like. This method is too individualistic to succeed. We're fucked. Consumerism has dragged us further into this mess, it's not about to drag us out. The workers must demand no other option to production than environmentally-safe alternatives, otherwise nothing significant will happen. Fuck politicians.
Reply
#45
If you're a worker at an oil rig or some other related form of production, you're the one in direct control of what's happening to the earth as we speak. Fucking revolt! Motherfuck. Of course, I must admit that this is going against years of some people's doctrine to listen to their bosses, also because, well, they want to keep their jobs to survive and feed their children. I'm thinking that, until they can't feed their children and survive, the world will continue on today's course.
Reply
#46
Quote:

Originally Posted by dreary louse
View Post
I'm thinking that, until they can't feed their children and survive, the world will continue on today's course.

Well, duh. There will be no revolution in the West because at this point everyone is too comfortable.

Full bellies and roofs over heads do not make revolutionaries (American Revolution being a notable exception).
Reply
#47
Quote:

Originally Posted by yt
View Post

YT,

Re-read what I wrote, slap head make "doh" sound.

if confused, click on link from this post,

Thanks,
buh-bye.
Reply
#48
What I find truly bewildering is this:

The current debate about Climate Change is actually driving legislative change and may result in massive changes in how people live their lives.

Yet, to date it's such a nebulous concept, and the only people directly affected to date are a bunch of South Sea Islanders that, let's face it, no one cares about.

Meanwhile there are concrete real world health effects from pollution that are widely known, and have resulted in NOTHING! To take one example, in California you can track the huge increases in asthma and other respiratory illnesses but tracking where pollution from industry and cars is carried by wind currents. In any sane world people would never allow this, but we live in this world.
Reply
#49
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby
View Post
Yet, to date it's such a nebulous concept, and the only people directly affected to date are a bunch of South Sea Islanders that, let's face it, no one cares about.

Mountain Pine Beetle
Reply
#50
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Quote:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Well, the CRU has no legs to stand on. With the released emails combined with this... they're done in the scientific community.

I still see people believing in Anthropological Global Warming, because as I said years ago on here... it's a religion based on faith instead of facts.
Reply
#51
Where'd you find the quoted part? The first link has nothing to do with it.
Reply
#52
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
Well, the CRU has no legs to stand on. With the released emails combined with this... they're done in the scientific community.

I still see people believing in Anthropological Global Warming, because as I said years ago on here... it's a religion based on faith instead of facts.

" Scientists return fire at skeptics in 'destroyed data' dispute "
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

Quote:

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

Reply
#53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake
View Post
Where'd you find the quoted part? The first link has nothing to do with it.

That was wierd, one time when I edited it it just showed up as two links... anywho, fixed it and here is the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
Reply
#54
Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
View Post
" Scientists return fire at skeptics in 'destroyed data' dispute "
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

Mine is from today, which story came after yesterday's story where they said they would release all the data they have...

I'll go with the one that isn't from October 14th. Nice try though.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW...armPeriod.html

here's a link to data also. It shows the Midieval warm period which their model (which is now bunk) does not have and they are not able to reproduce.

ETA - It's worth noting that the data is still out there, that is not the question. The question is can they reproduce the results... How these things work:

Data gets collected and input into modeling computers. These computers are like virtual worlds and the data that is input doesn't give an accurate picture. It's like a jigsaw puzzle.. you have to fill in the blanks as best you can by looking at the pieces and filling in the 'gaps' to make a picture. Now, the people who fill in these gaps have an education (usually) to do this but there is a lot of manual equations and variables that are required to get these results and some of the data is anomalous and needs to be excluded while some of is nebulous in nature and needs some firming up. By and large, everyone since the creation of the notion of anthropological global warming has requested to see the data (meaning the raw data and the equations used on them) for their own eyes. These are not naifs nor unqualified people but those with backgrounds or degrees in fields directly related to the earths climate... the data was never released.
Reply
#55
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I'll go with the one that isn't from October 14th. Nice try though.

Did you miss the fact that the Times article is quoting the "old" article (statements) I linked to? I linked to it so people can read the full explanation from the people being quoted. How that makes that article irrelevant now is puzzling ... I guess you should complain to the times for reporting on old news ...

Times ...
Quote:

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Website on 10/24/2009
Quote:

We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Note that the Times article seems to say this is a recent admission, and as Snaikeye pointed out this is not a new admission at all.
Reply
#56
Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
View Post
Did you miss the fact that the Times article is quoting the "old" article (statements) I linked to? I linked to it so people can read the full explanation from the people being quoted. How that makes that article irrelevant now is puzzling ... I guess you should complain to the times for reporting on old news ...

Times ...


Website on 10/24/2009


Note that the Times article seems to say this is a recent admission, and as Snaikeye pointed out this is not a new admission at all.

OK, I acutually took time to read your article instead of instantly dismissing it based on the date.

I'll talk to you a bit about what it is you are refering to...

In the article I linked to, yesterday's article.

Quote:

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

This admission follows the leaking... that happened after the october 14th email.

As to your link.

Quote:

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

Now, if you read my post I said:

Quote:

some of the data is anomalous and needs to be excluded

That is what he is talking about in your October link. He is claiming that only 5% of the data collected from the weather stations were excluded from the models they created however he does not elude as to which data, which stations etc... are excluded and that is what is needed to reproduce the results. If they had that data, they would simply release it instead of admitting they dumped most of it when they changed buildings in the story that came out today.

Now, as to the 'station' data.


Here is an example of a weather station that will give bad data... and people have gone out on their own and documented these bad weather stations(including myself), stations that the world has grown around and resulted in some bad readings. As to the historical impact these stations have, it is pretty easy to determine when the station became compromised from construction records, when did a road or building crop up around it.. when was an air conditioner installed, etc... but it is a tremendous undertaking.

ETA:

Here is an archive to the project about documenting weather stations. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Reply
#57
The quoted admission is EXACTLY the same as the one publicly posted on Oct 14, they also said the admission is on their website. There is no new admission actually.

Read carefully.
Reply
#58
The Times hasn't been keeping up. The website "admission" and the Roger Pielke accusation of lost data and are both months old.
Reply
#59
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/...mate_australia

This seems like an ill omen, as it looked like there was momentum building for a positive outcome to the Copenhagen event.
Reply
#60
The Washington Post does what appears to me to be a good job of summarizing the e-mail scandal and its ramifications.
Reply
#61
Obama administration formally declares danger of carbon emissions
Reply
#62
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2300282

R&D, Denialist-style.
Reply
#63
Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?

FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-1835502.html
Reply
#64
Wow, the fact that a major oil producing nation might try to discredit climatologists is really shocking to me. Next thing you know, the Saudi government will turn out to be climate change 'skeptics'.

And here I thought that all the challenges to the climate change consensus came from free thinking individuals instead of entrenched power players in the energy business.

Of course this could turn out to be nonsense, but it always fascinated me how some people will instantly jump on the existence of some Dan Brown level worldwide scientific conspiracy while at the same time giving some of the world's shadiest governments and corporations the benefit of the doubt.
Reply
#65
Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios
View Post
Wow, the fact that a major oil producing nation might try to discredit climatologists is really shocking to me. Next thing you know, the Saudi government will turn out to be climate change 'skeptics'.

Shocking!

"Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html

Quote:

COPENHAGEN — Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into “climategate” Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.

“We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations,” the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has promised to investigate the scandals, although its chairman said Monday that it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming.

But the Saudi negotiator told delegates that “the level of confidence is certainty shaken

Reply
#66
What the hell? Is the world upside down?

If even oil producing monarchies are doubting climate change, I may have to reconsider my stance too.
Reply
#67
Well, they wouldn't have gotten so rich being dumbasses, you know?
Reply
#68
Panic in Copenhagen?
Reply
#69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake
View Post

So the worlds richest countries are going to cover their arses at the expense of the poorer ones as we all knew they would, the talks unravel completely as we all suspected they might, and humanity gets the climate it deserves in the end.

...and I for one would like to welcome our new ant overlords and remind them I'd be very good at convincing others to labour in their underground sugar caves.
Reply
#70
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Rall

Both sides of the "debate" are liars.

The energy company-financed stooges are barely worthy of contempt, much less serious rebuttal. Their claims have been addressed and thoroughly debunked, over and over, for decades. Cut from the same toxic cloth as those who collected paychecks from tobacco companies to testify that smoking was safe, they are to be pitied, reviled and, with a little luck, imprisoned after the revolution.

More problematic—and embodied by the Guardian quote above—is the Big Lie of climate change: the implication that there's still time to stave off environmental disaster.

"The clock has ticked down to zero," said Yvo de Boer, the United Nations climate chief. No. That happened years ago.

One interested party has been left out of the news from Copenhagen: scientists. "Quietly in public, loudly in private, climate scientists everywhere are saying the same thing: it's over," reported George Monblot in the Guardian from Copenhagen. "The years in which more than 2°C [above average temperatures at the start of the Industrial Revolution] of global warming could have been prevented have passed, the opportunities squandered by denial and delay. On current trajectories we'll be lucky to get away with 4°C. Mitigation (limiting greenhouse gas pollution) has failed; now we must adapt to what nature sends our way. If we can."

Leading scientists like James Hansen say the maximum safe upper level for the concentration of CO2 particles in air is 350 parts per million. We're currently at 387. According to a study recently cited in Time magazine, we could ban automobiles and the internal combustion engine and abolish all industrial production, worldwide, and it would still take at least 900 years for CO2 levels to drop back below the 350 ppm tipping point.

Link here

Also, something that interested me. Apparently the EPA can now regulate carbon emissions without needing congress' approvial. All Obama has to do is give the word and the EPA can go to work on carbon polluters. Of Course, he is a pussy and doesn't have any balls.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)