Oh, he's a scientist, huh? That makes him more credible than the AP?

Having the title "Scientist" doesn't automatically mean credible, or that they're a scientist for that matter. You should know that. Anybody can say ANYTHING on blogs and get away with it. There is no accountability. Denier bloggers don't have peer-review bodies pouring over their work. And if they publish anything, it is through journals that are sympathetic to them and give them a free pass, e.g. the journal of Energy and Environment.

Plus, most of the time their scientific backgrounds are questionable. For example, I searched for this William DiPuccio guy and his work seems to encompass religious and spiritual writing when he's not contributing to denier blogs. He's not even a published scientist as far as I can gather.

He was formerly a weather forecaster, head of science at an orthodox christian middle school, and is currently the director of the Institute for Classical Christian Studies. Does that seem like a trustworthy scientist to you, or maybe a christian right-winger who moonlights as a climate scientist? Questionable backgrounds are abound with the denier bloggers.

I don't have a scientific background, if that wasn't obvious, so I can't debate the science in depth. I mostly have to go on who is most credible. And anyone who contributes to denier blogs pretty much has none to me.

12/13/2009 10:24:03 PM

12/13/2009 11:25:08 PM

also known as "global warming"

[Edited on December 13, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : 0]

12/13/2009 11:25:40 PM

Hi, welcome to TSB.

Posting massive images is discouraged and generally considered to be unhelpful... particularly giant Swastikas.

12/13/2009 11:30:21 PM

We're Fucked!

Quote :

"Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended' Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm

Quote :

"Northeast Passage Opens for Business: The mythic Northwest Passage still captures imaginations, but this September, two German vessels made history by becoming the first commercial ships to travel from East Asia to Western Europe via the northeast passage between Russia and the Arctic. Ice previously made the route impassable, but thanks to rising global temperatures, it's now a cakewalk. "There was virtually no ice on most of the route," Capt. Valeriy Durov told the BBC. "Twenty years ago, when I worked in the eastern part of the Arctic, I couldn't even imagine something like this.""

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_top_10_stories_you_missed_in_2009?page=0,0

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 8:16 AM. Reason : ``]

12/14/2009 8:13:19 AM

^ Another example of how Global Warming is making life better on Planet Earth. That new route will save fuel, time, and even lives, if only for the short time during the year that the channel is usable.

12/14/2009 10:01:26 AM

we need to industrialize even more and risk polluting even more as a species so we can actually discover the real 'green' technologies to keep us going and the world healthy.

i'm so sick of al gore saying we are past the point of no return and the tidal waves are coming. maybe he wants us all to go to church

12/14/2009 10:41:01 AM

LOL. Arnold Schwarzenegger is planning on giving a speech at the Copenhagen summit later this week.


This...from a guy that FLIES from his home in LA to the governor's office in Sacramento every day b/c he doesn't want to live in the state capital. Oh the hypocrisy.

Quote :

"Associated Press exhaustively reviews emails, finds no evidence of fraud, and nothing to undercut the vast body of evidence supporting global warming:"

Ya know, that link you provided showed the AP source writers at the bottom. One of them being Seth Borenstein, someone himself that is an AGW cheerleader and is implicated in Climategate. How objective...

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : no need for double post.]

12/14/2009 1:58:57 PM

whoops

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : k]

12/14/2009 2:18:22 PM

They should make everyone leave the summit and return to their country of origin by way of sailboat...show the world you mean business about reducing your carbon footprint...don't take your pussy ass private jets...take a fucking sailboat you nancies

12/14/2009 2:22:29 PM

so mother earth evolves it's very own super species of intelligent life.... and then it cock blocks that same species by not having the measures to handle that same species and all it's capable of?

welp fuck earth then. time to find more planets.

12/14/2009 2:23:08 PM

Quote :

"One of them being Seth Borenstein, someone himself that is an AGW cheerleader and is implicated in Climategate. "

A cheerleader? Hardly. He's a science contributor, so he would tend to report on global warming, since it is science. But he reports on a wide variety of scientific issues. Believe it or not, there isn't a lot of anti-global-warming science out there, so anyone reporting on global warming is naturally going to be reporting supporting evidence most of the time. This is just reality, and does not in itself point to bias.

Regarding his "implication in climategate" I found one email which has been passed around the blog circuit:

"Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth"

It looks like he's doing journalism to me. He probably wants quotes he can add to a article. He may have also consulted other people for balance, but we don't have those emails. Regardless, his email is completely irrelevant to the email scandal.

Further, the article indicates that Seth Borenstein was one of six reporters who worked on the story. Even if he was suspect, there were five other people to keep him in check.

12/14/2009 3:12:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a scientific background, if that wasn't obvious, so I can't debate the science in depth"

12/14/2009 3:19:30 PM

I don't know if this has been posted but there is a good article on the Economist about the most recent misrepresentation coming out of the denier camp:

Quote :

" A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations. The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. This isn't from the GHCN, or from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. It's from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). They conduct their own "homogenisation" of Australian temperature data sites, independent of the GHCN. And here's the temperature plot that the BOM came up with for the Darwin site:"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists

This part was kindof interesting to me:

Quote :

"a station in West Africa where someone had started measuring temperatures in Kelvin for a decade or so; the people who entered it into the global database, seeing a bunch of numbers around 300, had assumed the temperatures were in Celsius but missing a decimal point, and had divided by 10 rather than subtracting 273.15, which produced an inaccurate and compressed distribution for those years. But most of the errors and biases are far more subtle. So scientists homogenising data compare each weather station to the closest surrounding ones, creating a "reference series", and hunt for a suspicious divergence in trends. That's how the GHCN arrives at its adjustments for the Darwin station."

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2009 5:37:20 PM

Quote :

"and then it cock blocks that same species by not having the measures to handle that same species and all it's capable of? "

Well, apparently it does have measures and they are known as liberal commies.

12/14/2009 5:38:58 PM

Quote :

"I mostly have to go on who is most credible. And anyone who contributes to denier blogs pretty much has none to me."

So, what you are saying is that you will only believe what you want to believe. it's ok to be like that, dude, but don't come in here acting like you are actually trying to spur discussion. you can't spur discussion when you will only listen to one side of the argument.

Quote :

"Having the title "Scientist" doesn't automatically mean credible"

OK, then why are you harping on "bloggers" then? Why make the distinction?

Quote :

"Denier bloggers don't have peer-review bodies pouring over their work."

Neither do pro-bloggers. what is your point? btw, there are significant questions over the value of the peer-review process right now in the AGW field.

Quote :

"And if they publish anything, it is through journals that are sympathetic to them and give them a free pass, e.g. the journal of Energy and Environment."

Maybe that's because practically no one is allowed to publish anything contrary to the alleged "consensus" in the other journals. How is that even remotely scholarly or professional?

Quote :

"Plus, most of the time their scientific backgrounds are questionable. For example, I searched for this William DiPuccio guy and his work seems to encompass religious and spiritual writing when he's not contributing to denier blogs. He's not even a published scientist as far as I can gather."

How about you spend more time reading what he is saying instead of attacking him. It's called "ad hominem." And it is a logical fallacy.

Quote :

"Northeast Passage Opens for Business:"

That claim has been fucking debunked a thousand times over. It's amazing that anyone would still bring it up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/#more-11535

Quote :

"It’s a disaster all right, a disaster of bad journalism. I won’t mince words. It’s crap. But we all know the MSM can’t get much right these days. My guess is that the MSM simply confused the difficult and almost always closed Northwest passage with the Northeast passage. Bloggers once again were the leaders in discovering the real truth instead of paid journalists. Is it really so hard to use Google? For example the EU referendum had details and pictures of many previous transits of the Northeast passage. In this story, they show the history of this shipping lane."

Quote :

"A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious."

And making a correction for such a thing is entirely right. Now, explain why NO correction has been made for US stations where the opposite occurred: a change in the weather stations put in a faulty temperature sensor that ran high during the day.

12/14/2009 7:22:05 PM

Do you ever consider trying to address the main points of a post rather than each individual sentence? It would really help you out, and would show intellectual honesty.

12/14/2009 8:41:23 PM

LOL a global warmist talking about intellectual honesty

12/14/2009 8:46:41 PM

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at. are you saying that merely quoting things is dishonest?

12/14/2009 9:04:05 PM

If you don't know what I mean, I can't help you.

12/14/2009 10:47:25 PM

China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks
December 14, 2009

Quote :

"China, which last month for the first time publicly announced a target for reducing the rate of growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, is refusing to accept any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to negotiators and observers here. The United States is insisting that without stringent verification of China's actions, it cannot support any deal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html

SSDD. Is it any big surprise?

12/14/2009 11:51:37 PM

^^^^^^

Did you read the article i posted? It answers your questions.

Quote :

"And making a correction for such a thing is entirely right. Now, explain why NO correction has been made for US stations where the opposite occurred: a change in the weather stations put in a faulty temperature sensor that ran high during the day. "

I would also like to point out that since your original posting about the problem with the corrections has been shown to be complete bullshit, you are now moving your goal posts to another point that is also very likely to be shown to be completely bullshit too.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/15/2009 12:14:16 AM

Quote :

"China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks December 14, 2009 'China, which last month for the first time publicly announced a target for reducing the rate of growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, is refusing to accept any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to negotiators and observers here. The United States is insisting that without stringent verification of China's actions, it cannot support any deal.' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html SSDD. Is it any big surprise? "

12/15/2009 12:34:34 AM

Quote :

"hey moron it's christmas obama already has enough nuts to deal with "

12/15/2009 12:45:07 AM

lol

12/15/2009 3:00:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IdFVTTq8hc&feature=sub

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4&annotation_id=annotation_431132&feature=iv

These videos go over a lot of what has already been discussed here about the emails, but in more depth and offering more insight.

12/15/2009 3:33:11 PM

Quote :

"I would also like to point out that since your original posting about the problem with the corrections has been shown to be complete bullshit"

Where has it been shown to be bullshit? I agreed that there was reason to adjust UP around the 1930s. What about the rest of the corrections? What are THOSE explanations? No goalposts are being moved, son. You are just not responding to valid arguments and then accusing people of moving the goalposts later on related points

12/15/2009 6:54:09 PM

Quote :

"Where has it been shown to be bullshit? I agreed that there was reason to adjust UP around the 1930s. What about the rest of the corrections? What are THOSE explanations? "

It is in the link. The person who was misrepresenting the issue of the corrections was also thoroughly discredited too.

I’ll hooksaw it out for you:

Quote :

" And they couldn't always do that by reading meteorologists' diaries. They needed to use statistical tools to hunt for anomalies. So they developed some. And those statistical tools proved very good….But most of the errors and biases are far more subtle. So scientists homogenising data compare each weather station to the closest surrounding ones, creating a "reference series", and hunt for a suspicious divergence in trends. That's how the GHCN arrives at its adjustments for the Darwin station. Mr Eschenbach complains about the GHCN's adjustments, saying that there are too few nearby stations to make an adjustment: "The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period." He's talking about the Daly Waters Pub, but he's inexplicably wrong. The GISS website he used for his own data shows two closer stations operating in 1941, Katherine Aer (272 km) and Wyndham Port (454 km). Both had temperature data series that ran for a long time. Here's what they look like, unadjusted: [graphs of other unadjusted stations corresponding to the adjust made in Darwin site due to errors]"

12/15/2009 7:13:29 PM

bullshit. he specifically mentions those fucking stations. he says "hey, these stations ARE IN AGREEMENT with the darwin data post 1940." No, the article you quoted pulls a big ass ad-hominem, claiming that since he is a denialist, he has no credibility. it's as plain as day. The dude dismisses him the moment he sees that the original author wrote a previous article about the topic.

furthermore, the only other corrections mentioned by your article occur in the 90s. Eschenbach or specifically showed there were several corrections between that and 1940. come on, dude, you are massively reaching. pointing to an article where the guy uses ad hominem? really?

In addition, your guy mentions the GISS website, but Eschenbach says he used the GHCN data. peer-review, much?

12/15/2009 7:39:21 PM

haha are you kidding?

He explains several statements Esenback made that were completely wrong, and points out exactly in a fair amount of detail why, on this issue in particular, Esenbach has no credibility.

And the link clearly states that the corrections made were due to the statistical model, based on the reference data inferred by the other stations. THIS IS WHERE THE CORRECTIONS HAVE COME FROM.

It’s possible the statistical model is wrong, but Esenbach has not made this claim, and clearly doesn’t have the expertise to be able to refute the statistical model. And there’s no known reason to do so since the model found an error in celsius/kelvin conversions, and the model agrees with the stations surrounding the Darwin site.

The point is that thanks to the Internet, people with no credibility can say anything they want and someone who isn’t or doesn’t know how to think critically (like you), will believe their nonsense. He then goes on to rightfully surmise that it’s okay to ignore these people, when they have been shown to not have a clue what they’re talking about.

At least on the issue of the temperature corrections, it really doesn’t look like there is any foul play once you actually take an honest look at where the numbers come from.

Quote :

"In addition, your guy mentions the GISS website, but Eschenbach says he used the GHCN data. peer-review, much? "

eschebach apparently used the GISS data to INCORRECTLY state that the closest site wasn’t actually the closest site, which is what the Economist link is saying.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2009 7:48:56 PM

All you need to know about global warming, right here (from Gregg Easterbrook):

Quote :

"As the Copenhagen climate summit grinds on with -- big surprise! -- nothing specific agreed upon, here's my summary of what you need to know about the global warming issue, bearing in mind yours truly is the author of an 800-page book about environmental policy (that book was so fast-paced, it only seemed like 700 pages): • There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this. • The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated. • That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is. • Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas. • Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions. • Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions. • Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases. • The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem. • A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach. • If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so. As for the e-mails hacked from a greenhouse research center in the United Kingdom, e-mails are private correspondence. Copying them without permission is at the least unethical, and perhaps a crime. If you saw private letters on someone's desk, photocopied them and posted them on the Web, you would be considered a person of low character. Whoever hacked the climate e-mails is at the very least an unethical person of low character, and one should be wary of the agendas of unethical people. That said, many climate scientists are rigidly ideological and believe dissent must be shouted down. This is partly because of money and privilege. The United States and European Union spend about $6 billion annually on climate change research, and every penny goes to alarmism, because it can be used to justify government expansion. Being a climate doomsayer is a path to cash and tenure -- even to celebrity, as making wildly exaggerated claims got Al Gore a Noble Prize plus stock in companies now winning government subsidies triggered by alarmism. The doomsayers are lauded by foundations, go to parties with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and attend taxpayer-subsidized conferences in Nice. They've formed a guild with intense focus on maintaining guild structure. The 1962 Thomas Kuhn book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is best-known for introducing the "paradigm shift" concept. Kuhn's larger argument was that science is not an abstract truth-seeking realm, rather, subject to fads and what is now called political correctness, and one in which many scientists are concerned foremost with safeguarding their sinecure by toeing the line. Plus the alarmists need to divert attention from the inconvenient truth that 20 years ago, Gore and James Hansen of NASA began to say that without immediate drastic action against greenhouse gases, there would soon be global calamities. Nothing was done -- and no problem so far. That is no reason to be complacent -- warming-caused problems may be in store. But for the self-interested alarmists, this is a reason to shout down their critics."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091215&sportCat=nfl

[/thread]

12/15/2009 8:10:00 PM

I don't think I find espn to be that credible a source...

12/15/2009 10:47:57 PM

Quote :

"He explains several statements Esenback made that were completely wrong, and points out exactly in a fair amount of detail why, on this issue in particular, Esenbach has no credibility."

I see no such thing, and I am reading with the intent to find such things.

Quote :

"eschebach apparently used the GISS data to INCORRECTLY state that the closest site wasn’t actually the closest site, which is what the Economist link is saying."

I think there is some disagreement in what the guy is saying. I see him referring to GHCN data where there are only 3 stations in the region. He says as much earlier. Moreover, it's clear he is talking about a certain length of time for stations, as well. When you misrepresent what someone is saying, it's easy to claim they are wrong.

Quote :

"And the link clearly states that the corrections made were due to the statistical model, based on the reference data inferred by the other stations. THIS IS WHERE THE CORRECTIONS HAVE COME FROM."

Really? So, there were problems in the 90s, so we made corrections in the 60s? riiiiiiiight
Remember, this is the graph of the corrections

12/16/2009 6:39:08 AM

i want to see carzak and aaronburro actually fight each other to the death

12/16/2009 3:01:22 PM

Haven't had the time to read this thread and it's entirety however, I just want to make a quick summation of this "global warming" issue. Please correct me if I err.

(liberals) want global warming to introduce a nex tax market ($$$). (conservatives, big oil) want to deny it to keep us dependent on oil?

From what I understand now is this has turned into a political dicotomy warfare and I'm trying to make sense of it.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : /]

12/16/2009 5:02:37 PM

No that would be incorrect, start reading son!

12/16/2009 7:38:37 PM

Please just break it down for me. Shux, have the pages are childish arguing.

12/16/2009 8:23:33 PM

Quote :

"Really? So, there were problems in the 90s, so we made corrections in the 60s? riiiiiiiight Remember, this is the graph of the corrections "

what? this makes no sense.

Either the Darwin site is unusually cold naturally, or there is some other anomaly that causes its average temperature lower, but its high frequency variability to be the same as its surrounding stations since the move in the '40s.

12/16/2009 9:04:16 PM

Quote :

"what? this makes no sense."

look at the graph I posted earlier today that shows the corrections made to the one GHCN Darwin site. The black line is the corrections that are applied. You'll note there are adjustments UP in the 30s and some adjustments in the 90s as well which ultimately make no difference to the overall trend. Based on what I've seen, and the article you referenced, those corrections are perfectly valid. They make sense. Now, how about the adjustments UP in the 50s, late 60s, and late 80s, each of which is at least .5C? What explains those? Take a look at the original raw data, with nearby stations also included...



Note how the nearby stations are practically indistinguishable. Three of these stations are used for the GHCN Darwin site. The first graph posted is of the main Darwin station, which goes back to 1880. IIRC, none of the other sites at Darwin had any adjustments post-1940, which gives the final GHCN Darwin graph as such:



The author draws a trend-line for the "raw data" which is negative, but even he admits that the negative slope is misleading, specifically due to the 1930s jump down.

12/16/2009 10:08:14 PM

^ where did your first graph come from? Because that data doesn’t look anything like the raw data in the link i provided.

12/16/2009 10:19:01 PM

Ha, so I get it now

-A huge hoax that plays on the emotional strings on every person in the world
-A tax system that will regulate nearly every aspect of our life and how we live
- False facts being pushed by the media like CO2 creates global warming.
-Scientist basically being extorted to a degree to produce 'false truths'
- Al Gore and "others" become millionaires overnight off of software that "measures" emissions.
- We, in the end, benefit by "saving the world" while others become rich and powerful.
- Scientist who speak out in dissent are threatened

Say no more.

12/16/2009 10:23:23 PM

LoneSnark

Quote :

"I don't think I find espn to be that credible a source..."

The source is Gregg Easterbrook. He wrote a 750 page book on environmental policy. He knows his shit, and I think you would agree with a lot of what he says in the passage I quoted. Did you happen to read it, or just skip it because of the URL?

12/17/2009 12:18:13 AM

Hmmm, manipulation of the temperature records for Russia, which happens to be 12.5% of all land mass? Below I've quoted parts of the article.

Quote :

"Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming By James Delingpole Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages. ... Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. ... Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil ... The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set. On the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period."

Full article at this link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

And original IEA report (though it's in Russian): http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

12/17/2009 9:28:03 AM

Finally the REAL cause of our climate troubles....

Quote :

"President Chavez brought the house down. When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause. When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening."

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/12/chavez-cheered-wildly-in-copenhagen.html

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 10:36:15 AM

It's scary to see people applaud that brand of garbage.. People don't know what capitalism and won't bother to learn, and the ignorant masses will accept any anti-capitalism rhetoric as doctrine, as long as it supports their political agenda.

12/17/2009 10:57:23 AM

^&^^that just shows you the underlying MO for a lot of these people pushing the AGW scare.

12/17/2009 11:23:11 AM

^^^^ & ^^^ Both are simply more evidence of what I've been saying all along: For the true eco-Marxists this isn't about the world as we know it ending--they know that's not going to happen anytime soon (but they still use it as an effective scare tactic). It's about dismantling capitalism--period.

12/18/2009 4:04:40 AM

so we are going to start paying a $100 billion dollar per year "tax" to the rest of the world? on top of ALL THE OTHER spending? on top of the biggest polluters giving everyone the finger?

this seems like lunacy. are all the obamabots ready to pay through their noses the rest of their lives?

12/18/2009 10:15:25 AM

Quote :

"It's about dismantling capitalism--period."

haha wow

So this is why the right has been trying to tear down science for the past 8 years? Some Fox News-ian fear that scientists hate capitalism?

lol

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/18/2009 11:15:25 AM

^^ The proposal is for a $100b /yr fund to provide assistance to developing countries for reducing emissions. The fund would begin in 2020 and money would come from all countries--not just the US.

The actual language says signing countries "support a goal" of establishing the $100b fund. Very loose language.

Here's a copy of the proposal submitted by the US, UK, and AU:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/images/091218_cop15_declaration.pdf

The US won't be paying $100b a year.

12/18/2009 11:24:25 AM