Today marks the start of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. In recent weeks news has come out about the reporting being done by those who tout that Carbon Dioxide is pushing Earth to the breaking point. Hackers exposed a mass amount of emails from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that lead speculation and challenged the creditability of the data being reported. Since that time Phil Jones has stepped down from his leadership role at the lab but will remain on staff to continue research. In a statement Jones said, "What is most important is that [Climate Research Lab] continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review." Just a side note, I attempted to link to the statement but it has been taken off the website where it was originally posted.
I recall from my elementary education that plants need Carbon Dioxide to survive and the biggest producer of Carbon Dioxide; you and I. Human beings by their very nature contribute more to the levels of Carbon Dioxide than any coal plant, SUV or other manufacturing plants. It has been interesting since the hacking of documents that our major news outlets have done nothing to investigate the emails; rather they are busy reporting on Tiger Woods. Why is this? UN Environment Program Director Achim Steiner lays claim to the hacked material is, "not climategate, its hackersgate. Let's not forget the word 'gate' refers to a place where data was stolen by people who were paid to do so. So the media should direct its investigations into that" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-email-theft-likened-to-watergate-break-in/story-e6frg6xf-1225807887910).
Why hasn't there been a debate on the science surrounding the issue of manmade climate change? When Al Gore speaks he does not take questions very often and the media is not allowed in either. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, lost a huge court case in the United Kingdom earlier this year due to a number of inaccurate claims made by the movie. Researchers at the University of Minnesota-Morris and Wisconsin found that aspen trees are responding positively due to the excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. "What this means is our beloved forests are recognizing change. There was a 'what if' question that frequented the study…Its results concluded that aspen responded well to carbon dioxide, which is fascinating," said Rick Lindroth about the research he co-authored (http://www.mndaily.com/2009/12/06/trees-benefit-carbon-dioxide).
While no one will argue that air quality is important and combating smog in our major cities is needed. The trouble is the debate is not being done on the science for the most part; rather it is being debated on emotion. When the science is used by those pushing the notion of "manmade" climate change, it appears they may have cooked the books or the data. But we may never really know because very few people are asking the tough questions or investigating the data manipulation taking place. How do we discuss climate change going forward? President Obama has delayed his trip to Copenhagen until later in the conference when nearly all other world leaders will be there. Why will Al Gore, or others like him, debate those that do not buy in to the "manmade" angle to climate change?
This sticks in my craw like nothing else...
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you Viper-when the Abu Grahib photos got out, was the entire US Army military police to blame?
When Enron failed, was EVERYONE in the corporation the culprit?
You are talking about a few HACKED emails that stated some unprofessional and unscientific things. I haven't actually read the emails, however, I can attest that several prominent scientists have:
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing hidden, no manipulation"
UCS(Union of Concerned Scientists): "The e-mails provide no information that would affect the scientific understanding of climate change."
Peter Kelemen: "[A]lleged problems with a few scientists' behavior do not change the consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change."
Nature: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real."
AMS: Impact on climate change science of emails "very limited."
"I recall from my elementary education that plants need Carbon Dioxide to survive and the biggest producer of Carbon Dioxide; you and I. Human beings by their very nature contribute more to the levels of Carbon Dioxide than any coal plant, SUV or other manufacturing plants."
Really, Dr. Viper PhD? Do you have any actual research to back that up? Because the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) has hundreds of peer-reviewed papers out of dozens of scientific publications that state the opposite.
What climate change skeptics fail to realize is that the hundreds of scientists who study and write about this subject are not doing it for some kind of agenda. They don't care about the politics, nor do they care about what you as a joe blow citizen thinks of their studies. They report and interpret the data and report those findings with who may listen and care.
Had this been a scientific discovery that dosen't inconvenince us somehow, the general public could care less. But now big, bad industry affected. And they howl to the political people, they howl to the conservative media, they howl to the pundits. Now the scientists have to debate their findings with those who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Anon...While I do not have a PhD, I do recall what photosynthesis is and how it works. The study done by on the aspen trees is one element to this debate people like to forget, the simple fact that Mother Earth is nurtured by the existance of carbon dioxide.
ReplyDeleteThe hacked emails are important to the debate since the majority of scientific data used to support manmade climate change comes from this group. It is worth ensuring that the emails that contained admittance to "fudging" numbers are real or fiction. Now I am not saying that global warming is taking place, I am wondering why a there is not an open debate on the merits of the research in regards to the increase "manmade" climate change.
The biggest producer of carbon dioxide is the human being. So, why is it really that levels are increasing? The growth in the worlds population is why and not the SUV that sits in my neighbors yard. That being said, why are we not studying to see if the percentage of carbond dioxide in the air is drastically greater than 25, 50, 100 years ago? Why are we not talking more about the shift in our position in relationship to the Sun and the lack of Sun spots?
You are actually very much incorrect.
ReplyDeleteWhile CO2 is very much needed by our planet, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has always been in a delicate balance between living things and vegetation.
The dumping of CO2 in our atmosphere by industry has thrown the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that creates a climate shift. A larger amount of CO2 is not necessarily a good thing. This throws off the balance of all plants. Just because one tree is benefitting that just means another is being affected. Read about Positive Feedback.
If there was excessive amounts of O2 in our atmosphere. It wouldn't benefit living things at all either.
If it is debate on global warming that you are after, you simply won't be satisfied by the answers you get. It seems that you are just skeptical because some pundit on TV thought you should be and you start cherry-picking different articles that validate your point.
Remember, we all are enrolled at the University of Google and it is so easy to find information that supports opinions that we want to believe to be true.
I work as a forensic scientist. And as such I get told on a daily basis to keep emails to a minimum and very professional. Emails can be hacked into and discovered by attorneys who could trap me on the witness stand even if what I stated was taken out of context or not understood by the reader.
Please. Don't listen to the pundits.
Just google carbon dioxide levels over time and you'll find the studies you seek. I wouldn't read too much into Gore not taking questions. Sarah Palin is selling something, too, and refuses to take questions.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to note some of the quotes from the Aspen tree study: "About 920 trees were studied throughout three regions of Wisconsin over a period of more than five years, but Cole said the results do not necessarily mean that aspen will continue to grow.
“They’re growing in large part because of the effects of carbon dioxide,” he said. “That doesn’t mean growth rates will last down the line.”
Rick Lindroth, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and co-author of the aspen tree study, said researchers were surprised with the results. Oak and pine trees have not observed faster growth rates, making the study unique to previous research"
The benefit was not seen in other trees and it doesn't mean it will last. It's a shortsided argument of support.
Lord Richard Monckton has been very vocal against the science behind the "manmade" climate change. I am open to a robust conversation on the affects industry has had on our climate. I posted this link to Lord Monckton's reasoning behind his view that climate change is not a direct affect of man as the Left would like for us to believe.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
ReplyDeleteI want an open dialogue on the discussion and not some groups agenda. Obviously there is a threshold that our climate can sustain but lets discuss the merits of the science.
Forensic Scientist Annon-any emails that a lawyer hacked into your system to get would not be admissible. No lawyer would risk their job by breaking the law to get an email. Further, if the emails are relevant to the case, they most likely would have needed to have been handed over during discovery to begin with.
ReplyDeleteFSA - We are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion because the media is not doing its journalistic duty to investigate the accusations of data tampering that is possibliy being done as asserted by the hacked emails.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we not talking about the science? Lord Monckton provides science that runs counter to what is being asserted and if the hacked emails prove true that data is being fudged then why are we so scared to address it? Lord Monckton is not a fringe, rogue player in the climate control debate. He does have the "street cred" to back his assertions.
Why is he not invited to Copenhagen? Cap and Trade that exists in Europe has been a terrible scheme. Der Spiegel had an article yesterday that discussed the abuse in trading CO2 derivitives. One would think we'd learn from the subprime meltdown.
If we are serious about stemming the tide of global warming - why are we not talking about populations control, the use of nuclear power, and/or the deforestation of the globe?
Population control? That's a joke, right? You don't want the government telling you to wear a seatbelt but telling you whether you can procreate is ok?
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not favor any infringement on my decision to choose but if you are going to force me to purchase health care insurance under the guise of it lowering costs and premiums then I want population control for those on the taxpayer dole. Plus, population control is going to be a topic of concern for the Obama administration and those attending the meetings in Copenhagen.
ReplyDeleteJust read writings and comments from Science Czar John Holdren who believes that says billions of people will perish by 2020. As Robert Bradley points out today in the Washington Times, "But these tactics are not new. Paul Ehrlich's "population bomb" of the 1960s predicted food riots in the United States and around the world. Today, obesity is bigger problem.
Remember the Club of Rome's 1972 prediction of resource exhaustion? Fifty-seven predictions were made regarding 19 minerals, and all either have been proved false or will be."
Just food for thought....
First of all...Anon #2 you are incorrect. My emails would be admissible in court by the defense. Especially if they have anything to do with my professionalism towards the case at hand.
ReplyDeleteNow Viper, you keep bringing up Lord Monckton. Why? What training in science does he have? Actually, none. We're talking about a man who has gone on record saying that all people with AIDS need to be quarantined to rid it from our society.
He has no scientific data, no training in climatology, and no real expertise in science. Erstwhile, he gets propped up by people like Glenn Beck who tout him as the next great climate expert who's opposing the global warming scandal. Street cred? Really. The man has made a mockery of scientific data and the only people who prop him up to spout his nonsense are the same ones who act just like him.
Try again Viper
No, they aren't if they illegally hacked into your computer. I do agree they are admissible if related to the case, but only when gained through proper discovery methods. Besides, no attorney is going to admit in court they broke the law to obtain the emails. The result would be disbarment.
ReplyDeleteWhile I may not have completely vetted Lord Monckton, I did do more than the mass media did of Barack Obama prior to being elected. Lord Monckton did present testimony on climate change to the Energy & Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090325/testimony_monckton.pdf
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree speaking before them does not carry the same weight as grand jury, Lord Monckton has been on record to match his science data against any other in a court of law. Now, if he was not speaking some truth then he'd be brought up on charges by now. He was a science advisor to Prime Minister Thatcher.
All the research I have done on his assertions, the only critique I get is that his data does not take long term trends into consideration. Then again a lot of those some critiques only double his time horizon.
This is why I think a real scientific debate is needed before President Obama signs away our future.
Anon #2, sorry but professional emails are discoverable. Regardless of case. It can be sufficiently argued if I stated something in an email of an unprofessional nature, or something that could run contradictory to what I present on the stand, the defense is given wide latitude to argue that I am not fit to stand trial. Emails don't have to be hacked into you know-the server keeps record of them and they are discoverable.
ReplyDeleteViper-would it be difficult to admit that there has been scientific debate on global warming for decades now? The fruitless part of this argument that never seems to get uncovered is that the conservative media, driven by the polluting industry, are the ones that want the debate. However, what they really want to do is paint the global warming scientists and those who support them into a us vs them argument.
Do scientist really have anything to gain by participating in such a hoax? There scientists! World wide fame is the last thing they want(they leave that up to Al Gore)
For me enough is enough.
I will listen to any global warming skeptic but they have to be CREDIBLE, have done actual research, not taken money from the energy industry, and have worked in the field for some time now. That pretty much narrows down the list to very few. I know that there are some skeptics out there in the climate science community, but you don't see them on TV because they prefer to let their boring data back them up and that would put veiwers to sleep.
President Obama will not impose a life threatening change to your way of life. I has to be done gradually. In a sense that is what cap and trade is.
FSA, I've mentioned twice that the documents would be admissible if obtained through proper discovery methods. Maybe we are using the term "hacked" in a different ways. If the documents are illegally obtained, they are not admissible. If you said something unprofessional, that alone is not enough to be brought up on the stand. Now, if it goes to impeach your testimony, then it's totally allowed. You can be unprofessional all you want, but if it's not relevant to the case, the emails won't get in. Being unprofessional does not make a material fact of the case more or less likely to be true. It has nothing to do with being fit to stand trial. You're a witness, it has to do with your credibility.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't this group getting more press? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
ReplyDeleteAs I read the article...I come to the conclusion that nobody here is a climate scientist. There are a few geologists who have come up with their own theories, but no data.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that it brought up CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) which if you read closely is a think-tank front group funded heavily by ExxonMoblil, Chevron, and DaimlerChrysler. Personally, I have alway thought that the money that these corporations have to give these lobbying groups could go toward better environmental strategy.
To answer your question-they aren't getting the press because they have largely been discredited. If you want to hear more of the nonsense that gets displayed by the skeptics tune in to Fox News, because they don't really care who's been discredited.
Anon..now this is what cracks me up about the entire debate. The group meeting are scientists and much of the data being used by the group in Copenhagen is taken from geologists work to help them construct past data through Carbon dating and determing the levels of other gases trapped in the soil and ice.
ReplyDelete