From the CRU Hack: via Watts Up With That and Louis Hissink's Crazy World (Hat tip: Anaconda)
From: Phil JonesBelow: Global Warming In Australia (May 2009)
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Global Warming In Saudi Arabia (May 2009)
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
29 comments:
"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens." - RealClimate
Enjoy your paranoia.
LOL. You actually believe that?
Yes.
Essentially, I stand in opposition to deniers of science. That includes you, as you well know.
I stand especially in opposition to deniers who would pay hackers to steal data, steal private emails and then make such correspondence public out of context.
As for anyone who would reprint it, they are just as guilty as the original criminals.
Oil Is Mastery is the real liar
He lies when he paints Jonathan M. Roberts as scientist, 1894 because Roberts was the author of:
Antiquity Unveiled, Ancient Voices from the Spiritual Realms…
A book about spirits talking through medium…
Jonathan M. Roberts, Esq. was born in Motgomery Co., Penna. December 1821…He Studied law and practiced for some years, from which he retired previous to this taking up the editorial pen. … About 1873 he was convienced of the truth of Spiritualism through receiving communications from his father… In 1878 Mr. Roberts started Mind and Matter, a weekly journal devoted to the interests of Spiritualism…
You can download the whole book, all 645 pages, from the web, if you are so inclined, and believe in mediums etc. Search for yourself...
By the way, Roberts died in 1888, though OIM quotes him from 1894. And, Roberts seems to have dislike of Jews, which OIM may be.
More I think about it, the book is probably better than the beam-fucking wimps OIM is subjected to.
The snow pics show that cold fronts swing down much more south as the global warming drives the flow of hot air much more north melting polar ice caps...
These pics prove the increased instability in the air currents around the world. Weather extremes are the precursors of the real global warming effects, like rising ocean levels, loss of coastal regions and all that is anticipated...
I forgot, OIM expect the beam-fucking wimps to come down and make everything right...
Actually, he's hoping AGW melts the poles so he can be right about Atlantis. Without all that troublesome ice, we'll see the pyramids that no one believes in.
Nevermind about how it will lay our civilization low. He just wants to be unambiguously right about something for once.
Here's some interesting news:
Magnetic Fields aid in Star Formation.
@ Jeffery Keown & KV:
I actually thought that Jeffery Keown and KV were coming around to the mature view of Science: Some is wrong, some is right, and the issue is to be able to discriminate between the two by applying the Scientific Method.
But, apparently, I was wrong.
The fact that Keown enthusiatically drinks the AGW Kool-Aid coming out of Real Climate, who's contributors are directly implicated in the scandal shows Keown has no ability to apply actual standards to the pseudo-scientific positions he takes.
(Yes, it is now clear that AGW is pseudo-scientific.)
Sure, I grant you that "trick" can be a euphemism for "technique" as in "this is a neat trick to get the equipment to work".
But in this context, it's clear that "trick" refers to manipulation to "hide the decline" in temperature data.
There is no way to spin that (those that do attempt to spin are self-identified as complicit with scientific FRAUD).
Plus all the other communications that talk about destroying documents that are requested on Freedom of Infomation Act in Britain (it's a crime to destroy documents subject to a FOI request)
And improper political pressure on peer-reviewed journals to not publish anti-AGW papers.
As to Keown's complaint about how these e-mails and documents came to light and became public knowledge:
Sorry, Scientific determination isn't about legalities like suppression an illegally obtained confession or evidence in a court of law.
(By the way, since this institution is publically funded in Britain, ALL e-mails and documents are subject to FOI act requests.)
The salient issue is manipulation of data to advance a political agenda and the mind set of those that manipulate the data (what is their intent).
These e-mails and documents reveal the intent of those sending and receiving e-mails and producing the documents.
Kewon, that you would stand on legalities instead of Science tells EVERYBODY who reads this website where you stand: Keown, "I'm okay with manipulation of data".
How pathetic.
Some readers thought KV was a hard-headed "investor", realist, (that's how he presents himself, anyway) that follows the evidence and now we read from KV in effect that "cooling is really a sign of global warming".
what non-sense.
Does that Kool-Aid taste good, KV?
Is it red or purple?
Of course, this view can never be falsified and would have us giving credence to AGW until the glaciers are covering New York City.
I'm kind of left wondering is KV and Keown are Fenton Communications shills (probably not)?
Fenton Communications sponsores the Real Climate website and is a marketing and publicity machine for far-left environmental agendas.
To read and study the connections between Fenton Communications and the far-left environmental aganda, and Real Climate of which AGW is the Crown Jewel, read this link:
The Truth about RealClimate.org
Keown & KV, are you two lackeys of the far-left environmental agenda?
KV, are you an "investor" in green technology?
You guys, your defense of the indefensible leaves you buck-naked as a couple of mindless shills.
I guess the best I can say is that your personal animosity against OilIsMastery has buried your objectivity.
Objectivity? We are talking about an illegal act.
Show me actual manipulation of data and I'll agree. Find an email proves the Global Climate Conspiracy and I'll be on your side in this in a second.
I have no greater stake in Climate Change than you do.
Oh... and yes, I can't stand Oils and his dodgy science. He might be a nice guy... but I can't determine that for the fog of denialism he spews from his keyboard.
I'd love to see any of his pet theories be correct. One of them is the proof of alien visitation. HOW FREAKING COOL WOULD THAT BE?
Despite how much I (emotionally) want to buy into some of his material, I can't... the proof just ain't there.
Anaconda,
You asked: KV, are you an "investor" in green technology?
My energy holdings are in oil and gas, electricity and indirectly in solar energy through semiconductors (mostly for power management devices). My interests are in geopolitical stability as impacted by oil/gas prices peak-oil or speculation, does not matter, both lead to instability.
Anaconda,
I thought you were going to concise (use less words).
Anyway, you do say what is on your mind, and not lie like OIM.
I wonder if you had any thoughts on OIM's lie about Roberts, the lawyer, and medium for spirits.
OIM, a question, could wimps' technology of brain-fucking make you think of spirits visiting you?
@ KV:
Where I've disagreed with OilIsMastery in the past, I've attempted to reason with OilIsMastery.
This has been mostly futile and his reasoning is incomplete in many instances (you really can't reason through an issue with OilIsMastery).
So, I've given up, and just don't comment where I disagree with OilIsMastery.
Some of his ideas are good, others are bad and I apply the Scientific Method to discriminate between the two.
Jeffery Keown, the isssue is whether the e-mails and documents are authentic (which at this present date appears to be the case, even the Real Climate website you cite did not dispute the authenticity of the e-mails).
And since you seem to be riding on the high horse of the law:
When a private enity gets ahold of documents even via illegal means, that does not stop government prosecutors from using the documents in criminal prosecution (unless the government was complicit in the illegality, i.e., the actor got the documents while acting under governmental agency).
Such is not the case, here.
The e-mails and documents are free to be used to show this group acted in violation of the law and was intent on manipulating data to further their agenda and more important does not weigh one iota against showing these guys were manipulating the data.
That you still attempt to hide behind this supposed "legality" screen shows where you are on the Science.
Keown: Red or purple Kool-Aid?
KV, if you are interested in "peak" oil and/or oil price speculation geo-political instability, then you should study the documentation on the left-hand side-bar on Abiotic Oil at your own leisure.
Anaconda,
I'm just not one of those "ends justifying the means" kinda people.
Note that all I've said is that I believe in GW of some sort. It's happening somehow.
Yes, my outrage is directed more at the hackers than the folks at East Anglia, but so what?
You are very fond of assuming someone is a member of the herd.
Here is a thought:
Most people (on the order of 75% in some cases) do not accept agnosticism, abiotic oil, evolution, global warming, plate tectonics, or an Old Earth. That I accept any one of those things places me outside the norms of an average American's thinking.
You get annoyed that I'm not far enough outside the norm. Even worse, I dare to defend my thoughts here on this blog.
Honestly, to be truly accepted around here, you have to buy into abiotic oil, expanding earth, Electric Universe, artificial selection as the exclusive cause of speciation, biblical literacy and that Jesus was an alien bastard and Democritus knew what I had on my salad at the pitch in.
I think I'm doing just fine, really.
JK,
I agree with your list. I consider abiotic oil from risk perspective (selfish reasons), and I do trhink some of the MAIN STREAM science reports (i.e. Carnegie Institution) work in high temp pressure chemistry is of interest.
As I have said before, I found this blog in my research for oil and gas. Initially, I though OIM was interesting, but when I learned about his infatuations that you listed, and his word games with posters I decided to stick around to mostly set the records straight... As I have posted here I consider OIM to be a pathological liar and disilusioned person. May the wimps bless him with a brain-fuck beam.
Anaconda, you suggested: you should study the documentation on the left-hand side-bar on Abiotic Oil at your own leisure.
Abiotic oil impacts me (selfishly speaking) if it is found in abudence and crashes the oil prices to say ridiculous levels...
As I wrote to JK that I am much more interested in high temp and pressure chemistry... Why? Because, I have known about methane hydrates and hydrides for a long time, and have speculated that the stuff exist in the ocean at a level where we do not have any real fossil fuel shortage. I do not know whether it is wise to keep burning fossil fuels without knowing its impact, globally for the short, mid and long term. So, I listen to global warming crowd carefully...
I will observe that if the memo(s) prove intentional misleading then these guys are finished. However, that does not end the discussion and research on global warming...
Finally, I know of no field where the liers don't exist. Our Govt. is full of it, our defense contractors specialize in a particular language where nobody understands anybody so no lies can ever be figured... Actually, I like OIM's lies, at least they are likely caused by brain-fucking beams of wimps.
@ KV:
Ultimately, it's up to each individual to weigh the evidence available regarding Abiotic Oil.
There is a variety of evidence from laboratory to field evidence.
Abiotic Oil will not likely "crash" the oil market because it takes money to get to these oil deposits, especially ultra deep-water, ultra deep-drilling below the salt level.
And demand, while impacted by economic expansion and contraction, will likely, always be healthy:
Hydrocarbons are the most versatile substance known to Man.
From primitive heating over a cook stove to high tech plastics and fibers...the uses are almost endless.
Mindless, "peak" oil is dangerous.
And even Abiotic Oil could be exhausted eventually. But not within the next 30 years, and that is the economic horizon that matters. Beyond 30 years, results & "happenings" have no impact on today's economic calculations.
(That's why the "peak" oil shills constantly talk about "peak" oil now, or even better [from their perspective], yesterday, because they know "peak" oil over 30 years from now means nothing, maybe a yawn.)
KV wrote: "However, that does not end the discussion and research on global warming..."
Look, I don't want to "burn" the planet, anymore than anybody else.
These guys were the "big cheeses" in AGW. In fact, there is a small group of around 40 people that have been spear-heading the supposed science on AGW.
Taking these guys out of the equation is like "decapitating" the science. That's how big "these cheeses" were.
The only rule of Science is committing to the 'truth'.
"Morality" is opinion.
I have yet to read the entire batch of emails.
There are multiple ways tree rings can produce many rings in one year, or go years without making a ring. This complicates "tree ring" science.
Regarding the beliefs of "75%" of the population, "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups".
At one point "most people" thought the earth was flat.
What percentage of society chooses to be obese?
How many Americans live in debt, and spend above their means?
- A good way to become fat and penniless would be to accept the logic of the masses.
Abiotic oil?
How can the transformation of dinosaurs and plants into oil instead of humins take place?
Expanding earth theory?
Some of the theories I have read seem possible to me.
C3 plants(Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen based plants) may have added weight to the earth over many years. - This, or the earth will eventually be depleted of CO2.
- Perhaps I am overlooking something?
A smaller earth makes sense to me when I think about how "gravity" would affect large animals like dinosaurs... if a T-Rex fell I think it would be more damaged than a human who falls in today's climate.
- Theories of "ancient giants" make more sense if a smaller earth with less "gravity" existed at one point.
Electric Universe?
This seems a better theory than "gravity".
Oils is an old friend, I read this blog at first because of his interest in the "Electric Universe".
- When I was a child of six, or seven, my father asked me, after reading an Omni magazine (I think), "Which do you think is faster, the speed of light, or "the speed" of gravity".
- It's nice to finally have a logical theory to share with my Dad which may possibly answer his, now age-old, question in a way we are both, currently, satisfied with. - It appears to be a very convincing working theory. - What has debunked this theory?
Artificial selection as the exclusive cause of speciation?
I would like to hear more about this. It seems a very broad statement.
I have observed a debate over corn.
questions:
If corn is grown wildly in nature, over several generations, does it retain it's desirable traits?
-What percentage?
Evolution seems like an outdated theory often supported by chicanery, and wild imagination.
- What evidence has surfaced since the time of Darwin to really support evolutionary theories?
Biblical literacy?
Much of the Bible can be proved literally, it would be illogical to not test the limits of what each part of the Bible says.
- Through meticulous study, the Torah produced the Zohar
-why stop there?
- "The Big Bang Theory" originated from a religious/scientific study of Genesis/Bereshit.
I do not always see the stuff Oils sees in the Hebrew Tankah, or Christian Bible or other religious texts, often I do.
Someone does not need to be correct all the time to be correct much of the time.
Jesus was an alien?
I have never considered the matter seriously. I currently think Jesus may have been some sort of Rabbi. He was a Jew. He was a religious man, perhaps a man of mitzvah.
- Some people theorize Adam to be a man resulting from "genetic manipulation" of previous inferior generations of man (all failed G0d), not a surprise Jesus is under the same scrutiny.
Only neo-creationists think Adam was the first human.
Green Energy?
Regardless of your view... on the necessity of "green energy"... manipulating nature instead of clashing with it can be extremely lucrative.
Aquaponics + solar powered industrial de-humidifiers = no world hunger... add the use of microbiological aerated teas, and using a coco substrate, and its eco-friendly as it gets.
The "best" explanation/only explanation google yielded me.
"Prior to dinosaurs inhabiting the earth there were plants and microbes. There was one continent called Pangaea and the air was tropical; warm, humid and full of CO2. So much plant growth occurred that most of the CO2 was converted to plant matter and the richest supply of oxygen ever recorded was produced. Those plants were deposited in vast quantities and buried. Extreme pressure produced oil. Under less extreme conditions along with microbial action was produced coal and shale. Uprising of the earth exposed Leonardite, a shale comprised of decomposed plants. If you dissolve the shale in water you get humic acid, a large organic molecule. If you acidify the humic acid a small portion is extracted, fulvic acid is produced."
This makes no sense to me: "Extreme pressure produced oil."
If anyone has the ability to explain the merit of this statement, and how exactly humins lose their humin state, and shift into oil (of all things)... or access to the statistics, data, and information which show this theory to be highly doubt-free... I would be happy to lend my time to you, and to hearing your ideas.
I have had it explained to me (and I am not an expert from the explanation) how stimulating underground microbes by feeding them CO2/some gas(?) (with a Geo-bio-reactor??) can cause microbes to produce natural methane gas, or in some cases a form of oil (?). I think the microbes were called thermaltoga(sp?) and clostryda(sp?), and both species can live in very hot places. The CO2 is recaptured and recycled, the energy is "green".
- The quote at the top says fulvic/humic acid forms where there are microbes, which does not seem to make sense if microbes produce oil/gas from shale/leonardite/coal while closer to the surface. - Why would oil not reside in the same higher parts as leonardite/shale/the microbes if microbes can produce oil?
-Is oil created by microbes, or is oil created by pressure?
-Microbes make oil/gas vs. oil is created by high pressure situations where microbes do not exist?
-Perhaps microbes are capable of living deeper than previously imagined?
-Microbes and pressure are both capable of making oil?
-Neither microbes nor pressure can make oil?
-Perhaps the perception that pressure creates oil in deeper/high pressure environments inside the earth is flawed? Perhaps the oil deep inside the earth ends up deep inside the earth because "gravity" pulls the oil from the higher elevated areas it is created in to a deeper place, which by coincidence, happens to also be a place of higher pressure as well?
Sorry for the run on sentences! Long night. :)
Ayrie said:
Evolution seems like an outdated theory often supported by chicanery, and wild imagination.
- What evidence has surfaced since the time of Darwin to really support evolutionary theories?
...and firmly establishing himself as a completely clueless individual. Clearly you have never cracked a biology book or taken any modern medical treatments.
Anaconda,
I take your views on abiotic oil and peak oil favorably. I agree new abiotic may be too difficult to get. I am much more interested in old fields being replenished, as the exploitation aparatus is already there...
If alternate energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, it will win, so I hedge my bet there as well by investing in common themes for both fields.
Yes, if these sci guys intentionally lied they should be fried and they will be. However, we should not stop our efforts to live without contaminating the world, land, air and water. My interest is in finding better economic solutions than our current practices...
There was rivalry and therefore respect between Dan and Judah. Dan with Baalbek and Judah with Jerusalem. The Greeks were also known, to the Romans as Danaos, plural accusative, as in Timeo Danaos quia dona ferentes. I fear Greeks even/especially when bearing gifts/offerings.
Hence Alexander and Jerusalem?
The Hindu are vastly older than all of the tribes of Israel. They may have established Egypt as a trading colony. We lack familiarity with their written and unwritten histories, sadly.
OIM says history trumps "science"!
Because a trip to the doctor means people are hairless apes! Maybe Jews are evolved from Pigs and Apes?
Where did you get that? I never said a word about Jewish people.
Anyhow... medicine is researched and formulated based on the principle that we are related to other lifeforms on this planet. A prediction made by Evolution and proved via genetics and dozens of other disciplines.
A belief in "Evolution"... can I assume you subscribe to Nazi eugenics belief as well?
Nazi (or any other sort) Eugenics was in no way related to Evolution. Darwin's works were proscribed by the Nazi party. Please do not equate me with those (false) Christian butchers.
Do you also believe in outrageous things like "birth lotteries" and "transpermia theories"?
Never heard of those ideas, so I suppose the answer is "no."
Did you vote for Obama?
I don't vote.
Do you hate G0d?
You can't hate something that may not exist.
You have introduced yourself, to me, as a rude person, who has no power of persuasion, and no sense of curiosity.
I'm not here to be persuasive. I couldn't care less if you come around to my way of thinking.
As for my curiousity, it's boundless, but so is my skepticism.
"Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."
http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/13209/
Eugenics are a type of Darwinism.
Eugenics would not exist without Darwinism.
Francis Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin.
Karl Marx was heavily influence by Darwinism. He wanted to dedicated, "Das Kapital" to Darwin. Hitler got the idea for a racial holocaust from Marx.
It is fair to call eugenics "Marxist Darwinism".
The Holocaust was an experiment with Mendel-Darwinism... keep the best, toss the rest.
Christians do not have a fascination with the Occult.
Christians believe all men are created in the image of G0d. This is the opposite of Eugenics/Darwinism.- Do you believe all humans are created equal, or are some humans more evolved than others?
Thule Society?
German society was Christian.
All life on earth is similar, it does not mean all life is related through evolution any more than all life may be created by one Architect. An examination of the fossil record reduces the possibility of Darwinism.
Transpermia/Panspermia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
If you have no desire to exchange ideas, kindly keep to yourself... were your curiosity boundless, you would ask questions... instead of trolling.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jPwsQP-rpXoC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=%22Period+Piece%22+Gwen+Raverat+eugenics&source=bl&ots=gdkOv0TZOs&sig=hNQJmDLwGmlKN3_IXXJ8BT1fyow&hl=en&ei=ipYMS5L6MZT6sgPg1sWgAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Here is a book written by Darwin's granddaughter. A small glimpse into the family.
"Uncle Lenny used to shock me when, in talking about Eugenics, he maintained that a money standard was the only possible criterion in deciding which human stocks should be encouraged to breed."
Geoffrey Keown,
The paranoid are those who believe humanity is capable of altering the thermal state of the earth.
Arie,
No matter how tenuous a link you think you have found, the employment of science is in no way a indictment of its veracity.
Even if this Evolution/Nazi link were real, it wouldn't invalidate evolution. Even Oils avoids that nonsense. You should endeavor to actually provide counter-evidence to the theory. Hint: You can't.
Do nuclear reactors stop working, and the sun wink out because we don't like what happened at Nagasaki?
Not at all. Truth simply is.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." -Adolf Hitler, 1922
@ KV:
KV wrote: "I agree new abiotic may be too difficult to get."
Prices for oil already are high enough to support "getting" Abiotic Oil, even in the difficult locations such as ultra deep-water, ultra deep-drilling below the salt layer and prices will likely remain high enough.
KV wrote: "I am much more interested in old fields being replenished, as the exploitation aparatus is already there..."
Each field is different in terms of the geological structure. The conduits for the oil may remain viable in some fields, while in other oil fields the conduits have been collapsed and only limited additional oil can be recovered.
Saudi Arabia likely has the most intact geological conduits.
Even in T.V. ads, oil companies are now talking about reinvigorating "old" fields, and communications from oil workers in the field suggest "reinvigoration" of old oil fields has been going on for decades -- it's nothing new.
Actually, the communications from "rough necks" suggest a very high degree of success when it comes to "reinvigoration" of old oil fields.
But the new difficult to reach oil fields will be reached if the prospect is for a 500 million barrel field -- that seems to be the cut-off for the economics. But, thankfully, these 500 million barrel fields seem to be quite common below the salt layer.
Scattered throughout the comments of Abiotic Oil posts you would see that I have nothing against alternative energy sources if they can be economically viable without subsidy (either an artificially high oil price or direct subsidies).
Alternative energy sources if truly competitive will serve to keep oil prices in line.
I am a proponent of Global Warming, but I'm not convinced of the cost. The temperature of the Earth has varied wildly in the past, as has the content of the atmosphere.
Humans are damaging the environment, but are we heating the planet?
I do not know.
@ Jeffery Keown:
I appreciate your previous comment. It is a rational response to the latest news.
Sure, humans are damaging the environment of the planet (but in ways that are easy to see, yet hard to control or mitigate).
In my opinion that is what made AGW so attractive -- the thinking went, "if we can control carbon emissions (really a proxy for Man's general environmental damage) we can 'save the planet' or at least feel good that we are making the attempt."
(In some ways, the classic liberal fallacy that "good intentions" will make governmental action work-out right when the cold, hard eye of history shows nine times out of ten otherwise.)
And I suspect that is exactly why AGW took off the way it did -- in a sense AGW is a proxy in many people's minds for the environmental pollution they see everyday.
Note on this website the early posts and my comments make no reference to AGW at all. Speaking for myself, "I didn't know about AGW and I didn't want to burn up the planet."
The question of Abiotic Oil was a completely seperate question from AGW.
But, now, after research on the question of AGW, the science doesn't add up -- in so many ways.
The Climategate scandal is just the latest and strongest evidence yet of what the motive or bias is of the small clique of scientists responsible for the bulk of the AGW science.
In Science, "I don't know", is a responsible and respectable position to take.
Just be careful that a general desire to reduce pollution (an admirable desire at that) doesn't mutate into a willingness to buy into sketchy science, the result of which is a loss of Freedom and an increase in governmental control in individual lives and the general economy to an unprecedented extent.
Likely, it wouldn't reduce real pollution in any event.
Post a Comment