# Climategate



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 2, 2009)

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.
> ...


----------



## MechGuy (Dec 3, 2009)

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 (Dec 3, 2009)

ManBearPig!


----------



## CbusPaul (Dec 3, 2009)

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 (Dec 3, 2009)

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 (Dec 3, 2009)

Very well said, Capt.


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 3, 2009)

^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 (Dec 3, 2009)

^ 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 (Dec 3, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 3, 2009)

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


John Stewart on The Daily Show


----------



## frazil (Dec 3, 2009)

cement said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2009)

ble31980 said:


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


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 3, 2009)

VTEnviro said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 3, 2009)

cement said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


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


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


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 3, 2009)

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 (Dec 3, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > 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."
> ...


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

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


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 3, 2009)

VTEnviro said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > VTEnviro said:
> ...


That stuff kills thousands every year!


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 3, 2009)

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!


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2009)

I think it is unfortunate that yet even more worthless 'spinning' of this issue will ensue with the release of those email. I don't see a conspiracy - I see peers discussing aspects of analysis *AND* reporting.



cement said:


> 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.


In agreeing with you, I would frame your perspective as such:

Every call to action costs money - and that pot of money needed to address the many calls to action that are being made is not only finite but it is realistically shrinking. When it comes to climate change, I do not doubt that the climate is changing. It has been changing throughout recorded history and even geological history. The point of absurdity in my opinion is that one can deduce that the rate of change (for the positive or negative) can be reliably predicted with the curren information we have at hand. I think frazil is right in saying leave climate change to the climate scientists but I offer that there needs to be a modicum of scrutiny placed on the assumptions placed in this change, especially with respect to the what is driving the system.

The other point I offer is: let's accept, for a moment, that climate change is being spurred by increased level of greenhouse gases and particularly carbon dioxide. I have yet to see how anyone can reliably describe how the climte system is behaving, namely, the notion that there is a critical criteria at which things will become 'undone'. I have seen several reports that suggest a critical concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as calls that suggest 'emissions' by industrialized countries need to be reduced to offset the impending crisis. I don't see how anyone can prescribe a level of reduction of such concentrations that will rehabilitate the impending apocalypse even if there is a valid causality between greenhouse gas emissions and 'catastrophic' climate change.

I think Al Gore had one point right in this debate. Addressing issues pertaining to climate change is a moral issue, on a personal level. It all comes down to how the changes in climate will ultimately affect each soverign nation's ability to endure the attendant problems with the change in climate (e.g. rise in sea level, loss in arable land, reduced food production, strong storm systems, etc.). If one pegs this impending, catastrophic change on our industrialization and the conveniences we expect from our accepted way of life then it is going to take a moral, global consciousness to accept rationed resources. Ultimately, that's where this comes down - do you want to give up your higher standard of living? Do you want to be held morally culpable for this escalation in climate change and effectively pay reparations through the dismantling of our fossil-fuel generated power capacity? Do you want to artificially constrain the rate at which your country's economy can grow and potentially flourish by onerous environmental regulations? Do you want to do all of this without really understanding the cause and effect?

I, personally believe that political solutions are not going to prevent the onset of any global calamity. When it becomes a matter of your 'nationlized' interests at stake, I do not get a warm, fuzzy feeling about our country being auctioned off in the name of global warming.



Wolverine said:


> 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.


I am also in the power business and I can promise that the white house estimate that the propose climate bill will have on the average utility consumer is $15/month/household is an outright lie. This estimate assumes that a comparable, cleaner technology will be produced and implemented to be able to provide for baseload capacity. It is very foolhardy, IMHO, to assume a suitable, cleaner, equivalent cost alternative will be developed in the short term, near future.

The plan as it has been laid out is to make fossil fuel generation more expensive through added regulation in order to make other technologies seem more palatable. In terms of cost, I offer the following costs to produce energy by fuel source:

fossil fuel: $45/MW

wind: $100/MW

solar: $500/MW

What is even more tragic is that these costs *ARE* passed on to the customers since the costs are recovered thru rate cases. A utlity does not make or lose money based on the cost of fuel. The added costs of regulation are not costs born by the utility, they are ultimately born by the consumer of the power.



Wolverine said:


> 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.


Interesting point - I have wondered about the ability to adequately model such a complex system when there are so many different variables that react in an 'uncoupled' way (e.g. not directly dependent).



Wolverine said:


> 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.


I believe it is far easier to 'react' to changes in climate rather than try to pay to prevent those changes when you can't predict those changes reliably.



Wolverine said:


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


I just used that Akin's analogy yesterday to prove an absurd point! 

JR


----------



## Master slacker (Dec 3, 2009)

The stuff that has come out of my body today, going into the ocean to kill a baby seal ultimately makes more sense than the garbage being heaped on us by tree huggers.

Recycling is bullsh*t

NSFW


----------



## picusld (Dec 3, 2009)

When a scientist/climatologist can predict accurately the highs and lows of the weather tomorrow, then maybe I will start to believe that they have the ability to predict what it will be farther in the future.

My 2 cents


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 3, 2009)

I have been saying that about hurricanes for about 5 years now. Every year some douchebag out in Colorado predicts the number of hurricanes we're going to have in a given year. Maybe he ought to get his ass down to Florida and that will help but he doesn't appear to know shit. The last two years he has come out in September and "revised" his forecast to say that there won't be nearly as many as he thought there would be a month ago. But they can predict how hot it will be in 100 years. Give me a f-ing break.


----------



## TouchDown (Dec 3, 2009)

Cow Farts.

That is all.


----------



## MGX (Dec 3, 2009)

picusld said:


> When a scientist/climatologist can predict accurately the highs and lows of the weather tomorrow, then maybe I will start to believe that they have the ability to predict what it will be farther in the future.
> My 2 cents



That's the division between meteorologists and climatologists. Meteorologists use weather models to make predictions and climatologists are more likely to examine the geologic record for climate indicators since reliable measurements only go back a few hundred years.

Meteorology is still in its relative infancy while climatology is more solid.

/spend many an hour at the national weather center listening to the weather nerds slap fight over this stuff


----------



## Dleg (Dec 3, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I have been saying that about hurricanes for about 5 years now. Every year some douchebag out in Colorado predicts the number of hurricanes we're going to have in a given year. Maybe he ought to get his ass down to Florida and that will help but he doesn't appear to know shit. The last two years he has come out in September and "revised" his forecast to say that there won't be nearly as many as he thought there would be a month ago. But they can predict how hot it will be in 100 years. Give me a f-ing break.


Hey now ... I took atmospheric science 301 from that douchebag (Dr. Gray, right?). But I don't think you can compare the tropical cyclone guys to the climate change guys. They aren't usually the same people, but one of the meteorologists on Guam, who works with the Colorado "douchebag" and the Navy on tropical cyclone predictions, does give me his occasional opinion. He's a humans-are-causing-climate-change skeptic, but he fully agrees the data is there that the climate is indeed changing. He gave an interesting talk to us recently about sea levels and temperatures and such. The interesting thing is the fluctuations - sea levels rise for a while, then they fall. And they rise in some places in fall in others. I have no idea how that can be.

BUT - to fall back on the defense of my old professor - the typhoon predictions for the western Pacific were very accurate this year. I think they're doing a might fine job.

And to echo the complaints above - those of us in the traditional environmental fields, aimed at preventing people from getting sick, are feeling a little abandoned by the EPA right now with all the money and emphasis on green energy now. GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 4, 2009)

Dleg said:


> GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!


Seriously, when have you ever needed potable water at 3 in the morning?


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 4, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Hey now ... I took atmospheric science 301 from that douchebag (Dr. Gray, right?). But I don't think you can compare the tropical cyclone guys to the climate change guys. They aren't usually the same people, but one of the meteorologists on Guam, who works with the Colorado "douchebag" and the Navy on tropical cyclone predictions, does give me his occasional opinion. He's a humans-are-causing-climate-change skeptic, but he fully agrees the data is there that the climate is indeed changing. He gave an interesting talk to us recently about sea levels and temperatures and such. The interesting thing is the fluctuations - sea levels rise for a while, then they fall. And they rise in some places in fall in others. I have no idea how that can be.
> BUT - to fall back on the defense of my old professor - the typhoon predictions for the western Pacific were very accurate this year. I think they're doing a might fine job.


They suck for predicting hurricanes in the Atlantic



Dleg said:


> And to echo the complaints above - those of us in the traditional environmental fields, aimed at preventing people from getting sick, are feeling a little abandoned by the EPA right now with all the money and emphasis on green energy now. GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!


Now that's just crazy talk. We need to study wind turbines off the shore of Nova Scotia before you can get potable water 24 hours a day.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 4, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> They suck for predicting hurricanes in the Atlantic


yeah, they do, but I believe it is a lot harder to do in the Atlantic because of the vast differences in water temp and atmospheriic conditions.

The Pacific is a lot biggger and, from what I've been told, more uniform in temps.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 4, 2009)

Just my point, yet somehow some douchebag is predicting what is going to happen with the climate 100 years from now. They all say we're going to have increased hurricane activity as a way to scare us all.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 4, 2009)

This site contains some of the emails....

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo...e-verdades.html


----------



## Dleg (Dec 6, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> Just my point, yet somehow some douchebag is predicting what is going to happen with the climate 100 years from now. They all say we're going to have increased hurricane activity as a way to scare us all.


The U of Guam guy thinks this may actually reverse. The west Pacific just went through the three quietest years in history (until this year which is back to normal or above) for tropical cyclone activity. He calls it "The Big Nothing" and is telling people in his lectures that the world after climate change may actually be milder and more homogenized, but no one can possibly say that with any accuracy. He just likes to point out that so far the dire warnings about super storms are not coming true, and if anything, the opposite is occurring.


----------



## cement (Dec 6, 2009)

I've been driving my prius in circles trying to help, it looks like it's working!


----------



## Supe (Dec 7, 2009)

cement said:


> I've been driving my prius in circles trying to help, it looks like it's working!


:Locolaugh:


----------



## Dleg (Dec 9, 2009)

^Well, it really depends on whether he was driving it clockwise or counterclockwise. He could actually be hurting things, depending on which hemisphere he lives in.


----------

