Climategate 2.0

[Ninjahedge]

What he is saying is simple.

Just because one thing may be influencing the trend does not mean another is not contributing.

As to the comparison to "feedback loops", if any of you are familiar with calculus, sometimes your equation has only one stable region that a solver can find and "rest" in. If you push the initial guess beyond that stable range, you will not get a convergent solution.

We have to make sure that the Earth stays in that stable zone. That we do not get permafrost meltdown which may release MUCH more CO2 than we could ever produce in the same period of time. We need to keep the ecosystem stable, even if the cause of the instability may be a natural cycle.

As for the Carbon Tax, I know they are screwing it up. they do with almost any legislation put through congress. But the thing is simple. Companies and other entities do not listen to ecological worries (by and large). In order to get the majority to listen, it always has to cost more money NOT to listen.

You think anybody would drive the speed limit if cops were only allowed to pull you over to ask you nicely if you weren't?

 

[cybrsage]

Would it be good for the Earth to prevent the natural cycle from making it very cold again? While I do not want huge glaciers, they are part of the natural cycle.

 

[SparkyJJO]

We need to keep the ecosystem stable, even if the cause of the instability may be a natural cycle.

Or let nature run its course. If it naturally goes unstable and kills us all, well, fine. It would suck, but if the whole planet started to collapse can we realistically do anything to stop it anyway? But it self balances out as it swings back and forth, so I doubt it would even happen unless the planet was dying, in which case we're screwed no matter what we do.

As for the Carbon Tax, I know they are screwing it up. they do with almost any legislation put through congress. But the thing is simple. Companies and other entities do not listen to ecological worries (by and large). In order to get the majority to listen, it always has to cost more money NOT to listen.

You think anybody would drive the speed limit if cops were only allowed to pull you over to ask you nicely if you weren't?

Even with costly tickets most people still speed anyway. And actually, many places have now come to rely on the income from tickets and include it in their budgets - it would be interesting to see what would happen if suddenly everyone in an area just drove the speed limit for a few months so there were no tickets to hand out. What would happen to their budget?

Odds are, same would happen with this carbon tax stuff. Many would just pay it (as they simply may have no other choice in many cases) meaning more money for the government. The government would like that. I'd even bet that they probably expect that would happen. I seem to remember some comment a while back about how the tax revenue from these carbon taxes would help to fund X Y Z project or close a budget deficit or something. That immediately throws a red flag. Tickets and tax penalties should NEVER be an expected source of tax income. If it is, they are done for the wrong motives.

Carbon tax is nothing more than a scam to make some people feel better and take more money from our pockets. CO2 is a part of life, no way around it. Almost everything we do releases CO2, a "carbonless" society can not exist.

 

[JSt0rm]

Or let nature run its course. If it naturally goes unstable and kills us all, well, fine.

Wow, look how dumb you are.


You would probably pull funding for a project to deflect a asteroid from hitting the planet as well eh?

Our entire history of success has come from the ability to shape our environment and now you mr. dumbfuck hick from ohio thinks we should die off without trying to have a impact on the planet. I know the schools in ohio are bad but jeezus christ.

 

[spacejamz]

Wow, look how dumb you are.


You would probably pull funding for a project to deflect a asteroid from hitting the planet as well eh?

Our entire history of success has come from the ability to shape our environment and now you mr. dumbfuck hick from ohio thinks we should die off without trying to have a impact on the planet. I know the schools in ohio are bad but jeezus christ.

Man's success in shaping the environment?? best laugh I have had all week....

 

[JSt0rm]

Man's success in shaping the environment?? best laugh I have had all week....

Really? Do you have the heat on? Stupid fuck.

 

[Ninjahedge]

How is it funny?

Do a bit of research on civil engineering and get back to us.

 

[JSt0rm]

the problem is we are discussing things with people who are idiots. Thats the problem with these forums, we get the dumbest fucks I've ever witnessed thinking they are smart.

 

[Paul98]

We constantly change our environment and climate around us. We don't "let nature take it's course" if we feel it will have a negative effect on us or something we want to save. Why should we let nature take it's course if we can help people and keep a thriving environment by changing natures course? We should be trying to keep the climate at a temperature that is good for us in the long run. The planet it's self doesn't care as it isn't a living thing. if we find that the natural climate is going to to change so that it will be very hard to survive we sure as hell better be trying to change it so it doesn't happen.

 

[Jaskalas]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

"This year is shaping up to be one of the ten hottest years on record, according to a United Nations report announced yesterday.

Likewise, 2011 may be the hottest year on record during La Niña, a periodic cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific.

Until this week, every day in 2011 was cooler than 2010.
2011 has averaged 0.35C cooler than 2010.



http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutempshttp://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

 

[JSt0rm]

oh snap a chart! Clearly based on this chart global warming is made up. Have you shown this to the nsf? They are probably in on it because they want more funding for government union workers. Why wont they just find jesus already then we can all be swept up in the rapture.

 

[cybrsage]

oh snap a chart! Clearly based on this chart global warming is made up. Have you shown this to the nsf? They are probably in on it because they want more funding for government union workers. Why wont they just find jesus already then we can all be swept up in the rapture.

Are you always this dense?

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you always this dense?

Nobody is talking at you so you need to shut the fuck up.

 

[cybrsage]

Nobody is talking at you so you need to shut the fuck up.

Let me think about it. Umm....no. Thanks for asking so nicely, though.


The reason I asked if you were always this dense is because I do not expect you to always be this dense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but wanted you to confirm my thought.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here's Climategate, in a nutshell:

CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones on “the lack of warming”

“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020″
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?
Email 4195

Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
​

Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
​

Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these

Apparently the settled science needs backup plans for its propaganda machine. Temperatures just aren't doing what the models suggest.

http://www.real-science.com/reality

 

[JSt0rm]

Let me think about it. Umm....no. Thanks for asking so nicely, though.


The reason I asked if you were always this dense is because I do not expect you to always be this dense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but wanted you to confirm my thought.

Let me guess. You are some old retired government worker collecting a pension and spend ur days raging against the government?

 

[spacejamz]

How is it funny?

Do a bit of research on civil engineering and get back to us.

How did that civil engineering work out after katrina again?? Whatever man creates, Mother Nature can destroy it if and when she chooses. Only a fool would think man can contain nature which explains alot in this thread.

 

[cybrsage]

No. You can keep guessing if you want. It might even help calm you down.

 

[Jaskalas]

oh snap a chart! Clearly based on this chart global warming is made up. Have you shown this to the nsf? They are probably in on it because they want more funding for government union workers. Why wont they just find jesus already then we can all be swept up in the rapture.

You can't spittle over the forum, wave your hand, and make a year that's 0.35 Celsius cooler than last year disappear.

 

[Jaskalas]

How did that civil engineering work out after katrina again?? Whatever man creates, Mother Nature can destroy it if and when she chooses. Only a fool would think man can contain nature which explains alot in this thread.

They like to think man created Katrina too.

 

[monovillage]

Oh snap about the hurricanes too. Looks like the warmists missed that one also.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-us-hurricane-record.html

"On December 4, 2011 it will have been 2,232 days since Hurricane Wilma made landfall along the Gulf coast as a category 3 storm back in 2005. That number of days will break the existing record of days between major US hurricane landfalls, which previously was between 8 Sept 1900 (the great Galveston Hurricane) and 19 Oct 1906. Since there won't be any intense hurricanes before next summer, the record will be shattered, with the days between intense hurricane landfalls likely to exceed 2,500 days."

"If you are in the insurance or reinsurance business and want to stir up a little constructive mischief, you should ask your favorite catastrophe modeling firm or ratings agency to show you the mathematics behind their estimate of the probability of zero intense hurricane landfalls from 2006 to present (both made at the time and what they'd say today). (Hint: Zero. Zip. Nada.)."

 

[JSt0rm]

You guys love finding 2 data points and then arguing your case based on that information.

It doesnt make you look smart. FYI

 

[Paul98]

You can't spittle over the forum, wave your hand, and make a year that's 0.35 Celsius cooler than last year disappear.

What is your argument anyway? That since dec is cooler than last dec that global warming doesn't exist? Does this mean that if dec this year was warmer than dec last year that global warming does exist?

 

[monovillage]

You guys love finding 2 data points and then arguing your case based on that information.

It doesnt make you look smart. FYI

If you'd gone to the link you'd find 111 years of hurricane data.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you'd gone to the link you'd find 111 years of hurricane data.

And somehow 111 years of hurricane data shows the non existence of man made global warming? Or global warming itself? Or what? You dont trust other scientific data because it doesnt reinforce your preconceived notions on the issue but you some how connect this scientific data because it DOES?

Have I called you a idiot yet? I say it so much I dont remember.