Climate Emails Stoke Debate

carbon trading, by the way, has nothing to do with fictious convoluted evil coorporate agendas. it is just a way to make reducing green house gas emision less expensive.

  On 11/24/2009 at 4:57 AM, Hautlle said:

While I agree that it is impossible to deny humans have polluted he shit out of the world, I'm still in the air about how much impact we have on the global climate. There have been many times in the history of the planet that it has been much warmer or much colder. To think that we are having a tremendous impact on the climate may be slightly egocentric. There are many more factors on the global climate and CO2 or other air "pollutants". The Earth was here long before humans and will be around long after... As far as the actual topic: doesn't this completely fly in the face of scientific method? Peer review is the critical step that keeps the scientific community on the level. If that disappears we will have just another source of unfounded "knowledge" being used to push collective agendas against us.

All of what you say is true, but if you look at the famous "hockey-stick graph" there is a significant rise in temperature after the industrial revolution got swinging...

I always knew they were full of shit

Al Gore just cancelled his big speech in Denmark in connection with the big Climate Conference. You would think he wouldn't let go of a chance like this. He would get the chance to talk to billions of people about what he really believes in but he decides not to?

OMG IT MUST BE PART OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER EUGENICS MASTERPLAN.

  On 12/4/2009 at 8:24 AM, GORDO said:

OMG IT MUST BE PART OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER EUGENICS MASTERPLAN.

Haha, don't worry I'm not one of those New World Order-nutcases, I'm just not sure about the whole climate debate...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_en_mu/eu_climate_mccartney

  Quote

BRUSSELS – Paul McCartney took his "Meat-Free Mondays" campaign to the European Parliament on Thursday, saying the power to halt global warming lies as much with individuals as with their governments.

 

McCartney met in Brussels with Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s global climate change panel, and praised the virtue of skipping meat one day a week for the sake of the environment.

It's funny how the consequences or solutions of climate change are based on every left wing hippy fad of the last 30 years, like vegetarianism or militant feminism. Britain keeps getting told that we won't be able to solve climate change and save the world if we don't subjugate ourselves to a new federalist European country called the European Union. These arguments are sub-Orwellian fraud.

imo this is the wrong place to be focusing time and energy on right now. even though any hope for a binding agreement at COP15 seems to have been dashed, distractions like this never help. how about focusing on something a little more substantial...like the recent UK MET findings which make the IPCC figures look seriously underestimated?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html

i know that some countries may use global warming to push an agenda, god knows they do it for every other issue out there... but do most you guys really think that global warming does not exist, at all, as a consequence of human pollution? i find that strange. it seems like such an obvious conclusion to me. i mean, just look at the hole in the ozone from cfcs. our environment is pretty fragile and it seems like we're polluting it enough to tip it into dangerous territory.

why does that sound so far-fetched to most of you?

exactly, obviously there are people who will try to profit from any situation. but this is a very different than to think that there is some people out there who manufacture the situation so they can profit.

So basically I just heard the head of a climate science institute give a talk about global warming. I've heard a lot about global warming before, done a bit of research, watched al gore and with all his nice graphs etc. but seeing that man talk has really sunk it home for me just how fucked we are. According to him, keeping temperature rises under 2 centigrade is all but impossible, keeping it from rising 4 centigrade would require a severe controlled recession in all OECD countries pretty much starting now.

I know that science (especially science that uses models) gets things wrong sometimes. But its really hard hitting when in response to what is the hardest part of his job, he answers that its the frequent depression from knowing that billions of people in poor countries will almost certainly die, and fairly likely the collapse of the rich countries will follow soon after. And its all our fault.

What a downer

Any hope?

  On 3/24/2010 at 1:48 AM, blutac said:

So basically I just heard the head of a climate science institute give a talk about global warming. I've heard a lot about global warming before, done a bit of research, watched al gore and with all his nice graphs etc. but seeing that man talk has really sunk it home for me just how fucked we are. According to him, keeping temperature rises under 2 centigrade is all but impossible, keeping it from rising 4 centigrade would require a severe controlled recession in all OECD countries pretty much starting now.

 

I know that science (especially science that uses models) gets things wrong sometimes. But its really hard hitting when in response to what is the hardest part of his job, he answers that its the frequent depression from knowing that billions of people in poor countries will almost certainly die, and fairly likely the collapse of the rich countries will follow soon after. And its all our fault.

 

What a downer

 

Any hope?

Not if you insist on beliving this corporate scaremongering bullshit

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/

All the end of the world shit has one purpose and one purpose only - use fear to railroad through "carbon trading" legislation.

Carbon trading adds massive amounts of complexity to pollution control when pollution could be controlled simply and transparently through "polluter pays" taxes.

The only people who could possibly benefit from carbon trading schemes are polluters who want to take advantage of an overcomplicated system hide their pollution.

Seriously - ask yourself who benefits from carbon trading (as opposed to polluter pays taxation). It's not the fucking environment that's for sure.

Right now THE MAN is having a great big fucking laugh at all the stupid hippies.

CARBON TRADING IS JUST A WAY TO BRING DOWN THE COST OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Everybody that is going metal about this needs to read the fucking emails.

Those emails do not disprove climate change , they just make the scientists involve look like 14-year old girls.

It is true that people like Al gore are making a business out of climate change , but believe the facts .. this shit is real.

"bring down the cost" = make a system complex enough for fancy lawyers to game, so big corporates can keep on polluting

  On 3/24/2010 at 2:13 AM, Boxing Day said:

Everybody that is going metal about this needs to read the fucking emails.

 

Those emails do not disprove climate change , they just make the scientists involve look like 14-year old girls.

 

It is true that people like Al gore are making a business out of climate change , but believe the facts .. this shit is real.

IF I DOUBT WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY

Although if you encourage that perception amongst the unwashed masses, it makes me a hell of a lot easier to shout down.

BUSH - KERRY IS UNPATRIOTIC

KERRY - NO IM NOT, IT'S JUST THAT I THINK YOUR WAR...

BUSH - SEE WHAT I MEAN HE'S UNPATRIOTIC

PUBLIC - DUH KERRY'S ANWSER HAD MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE *RE-ELECTS BUSH*

  On 3/24/2010 at 2:14 AM, analogue wings said:

"bring down the cost" = make a system complex enough for fancy lawyers to game, so big corporates can keep on polluting

actually it's not a fancy lawyer game at all. it's a mathematical thing. it's based on the optimal way of distributing the reductions per country. the original idea was this: the world should reduce emission to reach pre 1990 levels, now, some countries haven't increased their emission that much since then, so, instead of everyone reducing their emissions the same relative amount you "trade" how much emission reduction you do with other countries, this achieves reducing the overall cost of the whole thing.

Because you can never get anyone to believe in science when it brings bad news the climate thing probably really comes down to whether advantageous or cheaper technology happens to appear quick enough to reduce emissions

  On 3/24/2010 at 2:43 AM, Coalbucket PI said:

Because you can never get anyone to believe in science when it brings bad news the climate thing probably really comes down to whether advantageous or cheaper technology happens to appear quick enough to reduce emissions

Actually it's a social change that will make the biggest difference by far - having fewer kids.

Of course no one likes anything to be their problem, so they'll just keep squeezing kids out and driving SUVs while they wait for scientists to invent a Star Trek anti-pollution machine.

  On 3/24/2010 at 2:50 AM, analogue wings said:

 

 

Actually it's a social change that will make the biggest difference by far - having fewer kids.

 

Of course no one likes anything to be their problem, so they'll just keep squeezing kids out and driving SUVs while they wait for scientists to invent a Star Trek anti-pollution machine.

err not that this has anything to do with anything, but it's hardly the people driving SUVs who are having all the kids.

go here: http://devdata.worldbank.org/DataVisualizer/

On the X-Axis select "fertility rate, total (births per woman)"

On the Y-axis select "GDP (current US$)"

Actually just watch the attachment.

(man I love technology)

Fertility Rate vs GNP.swfFetching info...

  On 3/24/2010 at 2:50 AM, analogue wings said:

Actually it's a social change that will make the biggest difference by far - having fewer kids.

fucking yes

i swear that's literally the root cause of everything

lower the world's population muthafukkahs

Dug this thread from the grave just to check where people are on the climate issue nowadays. 

Myself, when I saw Al Gores inconvenient truth back in the days, I was pretty much a believer. But recently, I've become more a sceptic. And apart from the "why" it struck me how people in general don't accept scepticism any more, and you're immediately put in the box of racists/alt-right/populists. Really insane. Similar to the leaked mails from the thread starter. To the point I know it's better to shut up. 

I'm not against saving the environment though. No problems with putting effort into initiatives to reduce pollution and minimize the use of fossil fuels. It's just the level of -imo- dishonesty about what we could do to curve climate change. And what the science actually says. 

If people are interested I could go into detail on why I've become a sceptic. But it's probably better to feel the temperature first.

More sceptics around here?

So basically...

Well, don't expect a big difference in outcomes if you do invest. Sea levels will rise until a next ice age. And given the Milankovitch-cycles/parameters that might take a while. But the thing is, all the hysteria really gets annoying after a while. Just implement some common sense policies. And don't confuse energy policies with climate policies. This false sense of urgency where we can actually keep the sea levels from rising is just silly, imo.