Climategate

[Capt Worley PE]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...4250205490.html

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."
To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

 

[MechGuy]

This "Climategate" is really nothing at all. if you read other articles or blogs about it, or read the "leaked" emails themselves, its easy to see that there is no scandal. Its simply scientists and researchers talking to themselves in what they believe is a private forum (email). Is it really surprising to find that there is politics amongst the science community, just like everywhere else? Is it really surprising to find that some data may have been "massaged" to show what the researchers wanted the data to show? Not to me... I'm always skeptical of any statistical analysis.

The "real" truth can't be hidden. No data needs to be "massaged" to show it. Artic Ice and glaciers are melting, which is causing rising sea levels. Growing seasons are beginning earlier and earlier each year. Permafrost is thawing in northern tier countries. These are just a few examples.... something is certainly happening to cause all of this, and something needs to be done to stop it.

People can be skeptical all they want. I like to question things too. But the mountain of evidence is so overwhelming, so it always surprises me to hear someone say something like "its a hoax."

Its not a political thing, its not a liberal vs conservative thing, its simply a problem (with dire consequences) that needs to be solved quickly. If I (and the majority of the scientific community) is wrong, then all we have done is attempt to fix problems such as energy efficiency, air pollution, and find new energy sources to replace ones that are drying up (and we have to depend on unstable countries to obtain), all of which helps to create a new job market to help the current economic recession. I don't see any of these things as bad.

My question is, what is the skeptics are wrong, and we don't do anything? The risk is too great in my mind.

OK...off the soapbox Thanks for listening!

 

[chaosiscash]

ManBearPig!

 

[CbusPaul]

Arctic glaciers are melting? I won't dispute that if you'll stipulate that it has to be greater than 32 degrees F in order for ice to melt, at least it does in Ohio. If you agree with that theory, some would call it a law, then you are saying that the Arctic was teetering right on the low edge of 32 degrees and global warming has pushed the temperature above the melting point? I believe that the deteriorating conditions that you are seeing in the arctic has to do with the wind directions changing and pushing the glaciers toward warmer water as they continue their constant movement.

It is also very interesting to note that in several spots where the glaciers have receeded, they have found manmade artifacts, meaning somebody used to be there, presumably before the glaciers were, many years ago. What caused the glaciers to recede then? I'm not sure you have a mountain of evidence like you say you do because I've yet to be convinced.

No scandal? I believe the scandal lies in the fact that they dumped all of their original data, saying "we still have the value added data." That's not the type of evidence I would believe is overwhelming. Value-added data.

The political community is not interested in solving this problem to find energy sources that will quit the emission of CO2. Nuclear is viable and can be used as a base load plant, but the enviros are completely against that because it will continue to leave the money in the hands of the same people who run the utilities today.

Now off my soapbox, but don't be so quick to dismiss the so-called "skeptics" when you seem to know so little about what you are talking about.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

You know, technically, we are still in an ice age since there are ice caps year rond at the poles.

I've said this before. We have big brains, we will adapt. And if the Earth IS getting warmer, that isn't a bad thing. longer growing seasons and more land that can be farmed are good. Less people freezing to deat is good.

And these changes won't happen overnight. Basically, the world won't change much in our lifetime. It really won't change much in ANY generations lifetime, barring a freak cosmic occurence.

So why all the 'something must be done now,' falderall? Money, and power.

So for the act now guys, what would have happened if the ;'act now' group in the 70s had painted the glaciers with lampblack and coal dust to make the temps rise?

I remeber a wise old sage once told me "Act in haste, repent in leisure," which pretty much sums up the WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!! outlook, IMO.

 

[CbusPaul]

Very well said, Capt.

 

[Ble_PE]

^I agree. I am of the cloth that folks think humans have much more control over the planet than we really do. The earth will be here long after we are gone, and it won't even blink an eye (figuratively speaking ). I'm not against energy efficiency, recycling, reusing, and all the other things that tree huggers spout off about, but you are not going to tax me to oblivion and change my quality of life to combat something that has not been proven. These leaked emails are more damning than the "believers" want to admit, because they talk directly about hiding data, blasting colleagues that don't agree, and discuss how to manipulate the data to their benefit. That means that the science doesn't back up their claims.

 

[cement]

^ you got it.

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.

or we can make some meaningless gestures to reduce CO2 that will result in less wealth and a lower quality of life.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.

That's a great way to sum up how I feel. Here's an example. I'm perfectly happy to design a detention pond to promote water quality. But I refuse to get on board with something gay like labeling those catch basins with those silly signs that say "No Dumping: Drains to River."

1. Where else would it drain?

2. It doesn't keep anyone from dumping anything.

I also think kids are being brainwashed by this soft science hippie garbage.

 

[Flyer_PE]

Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!

John Stewart on The Daily Show

 

[frazil]

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.

right! And leave the climate science to the climate scientists.

 

[udpolo15]

^The earth will be here long after we are gone, and it won't even blink an eye (figuratively speaking ).

 

[wilheldp_PE]

That's a great way to sum up how I feel. Here's an example. I'm perfectly happy to design a detention pond to promote water quality. But I refuse to get on board with something gay like labeling those catch basins with those silly signs that say "No Dumping: Drains to River."
1. Where else would it drain?

2. It doesn't keep anyone from dumping anything.

I also think kids are being brainwashed by this soft science hippie garbage.

That makes me think of a funny story that I may have told on here before. One of the guys in the parks department in Louisville decided to capitalize on the ignorance of the people to keep vagrants from bathing in the public fountains and reflecting pools. He put up signs that said "WARNING: HIGH HYDROGEN CONTENT!" The funny thing is that it worked, and people stopped getting into the fountains. Unfortunately, the political correctness police pitched a fit about the government insulting the intelligence of the people and made them take the signs down. I thought it was a hilarious and brilliant idea.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.
or we can make some meaningless gestures to reduce CO2 that will result in less wealth and a lower quality of life.

Exactly.

I think the great scientific minds and political will would be put to better use divising ways to deliver potable water to impoverished regions cheaply, eradicate disease, designing irrigation projects, and making products less wastefully.

Pollution, disease, hunger, and lack of potable water will kill far more people than 'global warming' ever will, but look where the emphasis is placed.

 

[Chucktown PE]

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.
or we can make some meaningless gestures to reduce CO2 that will result in less wealth and a lower quality of life.

Exactly.

I think the great scientific minds and political will would be put to better use divising ways to deliver potable water to impoverished regions cheaply, eradicate disease, designing irrigation projects, and making products less wastefully.

Pollution, disease, hunger, and lack of potable water will kill far more people than 'global warming' ever will, but look where the emphasis is placed.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, how in the hell are we going to tax the **** out of people and squander trillions of dollars doing simple stuff like that?

 

[Wolverine]

I'm in the power business and it's staggering how much regulation is costing, and is being passed on to the consumer - billion$. And for what? To reduce emissions, not to solve regional problems which I believe in, but to solve global issues where that emission reduction sums to be percents of a percent of the natural emissions of the planet. My personal study has led me to the conclusion that complex multivariable systems in homeostasis, like the Earth, are NOT fragile. We are not teetering. It's unfathomable to me how a system as vast and complex as the Earth can be driven into instability. The planet has absorbed meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions with hardly a wobble and we're worried about cow farts? Give me a break.

I saw a graph one time about how much of the US would be devastated if the glaciers melted and the ocean rose 10 meters. It accompanied an article that declared the oceans were rising at a break neck pace of 2 millimeters per year. That's 5000 years. And that's assuming a linear progression, not taking into account that rising oceans would cool the planet and refreeze the glaciers.

But then everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.

 

[z06dustin]

Pollution, disease, hunger, and lack of potable water will kill far more people than 'global warming' ever will, but look where the emphasis is placed.

You forgot legislation.... like the restricted use of DDT killing 20 million children.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707...ure1/text4.html

If the greenies get their way, restrictions on CO2 emissions also spread to the agrarian industry which will also result in more deaths.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

It's easy for Americans to not realize that an increase in a few dollars for a commodity is nothing to us, but if the legislation has the same impact abroad where there are already too few resources, they will literally be killing people for the possibility of global warming.

In school I worked as a Research Assistant on a "climate change" EPRI project, and in Academia there's absolutely no dissention allowed on this subject. You're not allowed to question it. It is Truth.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

That's a great way to sum up how I feel. Here's an example. I'm perfectly happy to design a detention pond to promote water quality. But I refuse to get on board with something gay like labeling those catch basins with those silly signs that say "No Dumping: Drains to River."
1. Where else would it drain?

2. It doesn't keep anyone from dumping anything.

I also think kids are being brainwashed by this soft science hippie garbage.

That makes me think of a funny story that I may have told on here before. One of the guys in the parks department in Louisville decided to capitalize on the ignorance of the people to keep vagrants from bathing in the public fountains and reflecting pools. He put up signs that said "WARNING: HIGH HYDROGEN CONTENT!" The funny thing is that it worked, and people stopped getting into the fountains. Unfortunately, the political correctness police pitched a fit about the government insulting the intelligence of the people and made them take the signs down. I thought it was a hilarious and brilliant idea.

Beware dihydrogen monoxide! The government doesn't want you to know.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

[Capt Worley PE]

That's a great way to sum up how I feel. Here's an example. I'm perfectly happy to design a detention pond to promote water quality. But I refuse to get on board with something gay like labeling those catch basins with those silly signs that say "No Dumping: Drains to River."
1. Where else would it drain?

2. It doesn't keep anyone from dumping anything.

I also think kids are being brainwashed by this soft science hippie garbage.

That makes me think of a funny story that I may have told on here before. One of the guys in the parks department in Louisville decided to capitalize on the ignorance of the people to keep vagrants from bathing in the public fountains and reflecting pools. He put up signs that said "WARNING: HIGH HYDROGEN CONTENT!" The funny thing is that it worked, and people stopped getting into the fountains. Unfortunately, the political correctness police pitched a fit about the government insulting the intelligence of the people and made them take the signs down. I thought it was a hilarious and brilliant idea.

Beware dihydrogen monoxide! The government doesn't want you to know.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

That stuff kills thousands every year!

 

[Flyer_PE]

It's just like tobacco used to be. They bottle that stuff up and sell it to people that actually think it's good for them! I demand a government inquiry!