climate change, or propaganda?

[IceTea]

With the release of Climate gate 2 e-mails, I have to question rather or not the governments view on climate change and rather it was propaganda to to help achieve a per-determine political agenda. I do like the ideal of cleaning up the environment and keeping it free of trash, garbage and pollution mainly because of health concerns, not because of global warming or climate change. However I don't like the ideal of punishing people for littering, as long they don't damage private property.

 

I do believe in private property rights and that those who do trash private property belonging to somebody else should get punish, at less with criminal trespassing. But throwing a person into jail for simple dropping a candy bar wrapper into the street, no I don't like the ideal of that, because the candy bar wrapper could very easily be pick up and put into the trash by some body else.

 

I really don't understand how C02 can be evil and destroy the world. Since plants use C02 to breath and they in turn produce Oxygen that we humans, as well all animals on earth use to breath! With out C02, they be no green plants, no green plants to Oxygen, well less Oxygen since most Oxygen come from algae, but still I you think you get the ideal what I am talking about..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1f6kgHtyr

 

[Vezon Dash]

"Global warming is bullshit, and I want people to litter," is all that I got out of that.

 

Have you ever seen this movie?

 

 

 

You can't deny that global warming is happening. There is hard proof of it, and as for not giving out fines for littering? While we are at it, let's not arrest rapists and murderers.

[obfuscator]

"climate change" is a somewhat doubtful environmental phenomenon used more for political purposes than anything.

 

That's not to say we shouldn't treat our environment better, I'm just not sold on the dramatic "global warming" mantra that so many chant...

[ilovecuttingyews]

The e-mails released are from the same data breach as the first ones. They were intentionally kept until now to cause maximum disruption with the upcoming Climate Change conference in Durban. If you want propoganda, that's as big as it comes. As for the contents of the e-mails, I've never gone in depth with reading them, but from what I've read in the news, the vast majority of those involved have been shown to have done nothing wrong in terms of final scientific outcomes. In fact, a self proclaimed skeptic just released his paper (funded largely by Charles and David Koch; known for funding anti-Global warming studies) and has found that the Earth is in fact warming as much -or more- as the 'climategate' scientists claimed. You can read an overview here..

 

Your candybar wrapper example is a good example of the Tragedy of the Commons. In a world with no punishment for negative actions, and no reward for positive actions people will chose the easier of the options - littering. Eventually everyone littering and no one cleaning it up because they're leaving it for the next guy is going to cause a severe problem. Also, one wrapper isn't too much concern (though in time they all add up, like cigarette butts on my campus) but it's the big polluters who dump thousands and thousands of tonnes of waste that are the major factor. Just look at the Pacific Garbage Patch.. No one is going to go clean that up because it's international waters and no specific entity 'has' to so why spend the money cleaning up someone elses mess?

 

CO2 is not evil. No one claims it is. But too much of a good thing is not good. Without CO2 we would all be dead. Both because we eventually would run out of oxygen, but also because of the natural greenhouse effect. Without the CO2 and other greenhosue gasses, the global average temperature would be ~33C lower. The problem is that our modern civilization has grown up in a relativly stable period of global climate. This means that we've built our civilization based on a climate that is rapidly changing under our very feet and we're not conditioned for that. It's not about saving the planet (she will go on), or even save the human race (again, we'll still be here), but it's about not deminishing the Earth for future generations.

 

In my History of Environmental Change course, we went through the entire history of Earth to see how it has changed over time. There is one thing that is crucial to this constant change and that's CO2. It has been called the 'global thermostat' and rightly so. CO2 regulates everything from air temperature to errosion. Once CO2 levels spike, all hell breaks loose causing a chain reaction that warms the Earth further. Human induced warming will cause the Arctic to thaw. This thawing will allow microbes to decompose the 1.5 trillion tons of carbon (dead organic matter) locked away in the permafrost. This in turn will warm the Earth more. Warm water can hold less carbon so our oceans will start to lose their massive carrying capacity leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere, warming us more. The oceans will warm to a point that thaws the methane hydrates on the ocean floor, causing even more warming. And so on, and so on. I beleive that the UN has said that 450ppm CO2 is the 'cutoff point' where we start seeing irreversable damages to our climate. As of now, we're at ~390ppm and gaining ~2.5ppm/year, giving us just over 20 years before it becomes 'irreversable'. Who knows....these numbers may be off, we may find a way to remove massive amounts of GHG's from the atmosphere, but I for one don't want to leave a mess for my children to have clean up.

[Skull]

because the candy bar wrapper could very easily be pick up and put into the trash by some body else.

 

This right here is why the world sucks.

[Zierro]

That's not to say we shouldn't treat our environment better, I'm just not sold on the dramatic "global warming" mantra that so many chant...

 

This.

[ilovecuttingyews]

That's not to say we shouldn't treat our environment better, I'm just not sold on the dramatic "global warming" mantra that so many chant...

This.

Here's the graph from the latest global warming paper. Not only did it address the statistical issues that most of the climate change skeptics said was showing warming temperatures, but also took into account many factors like the heat island effect and data set sizes. Actually, I believe this was the greatest aggregation of data in a climate research paper, using over 1.6 billion temperature readings.

 

 

Aso you can see, the average global temperature is clearly rising. The only debate now is whether it's anthropogenic or natural, and the implications of a warmer world.

[aspeeder]

'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

 

Last year, the hacked emails of climate scientists from the University of East Anglia spawned what has hitherto become known as "Climategate -- a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam. There was never a whole lot to hang a scandal on, but that didn't stop the frenzy that pushed "Climategate" onto front pages and network news shows.

 

Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, "concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound" and that the "deniers' arguments were debunked." Where's the coverage, though? Last week, CJR's Curtis Brainard put out a call:

 

Each of these [independent investigations] has, in turn, drawn significant coverage in mainstream media and independent blogs of all varieties and points of view (see round-ups here, here, and here for instance). But only a few brief articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines, and they were usually buried deep inside. It is not surprising that editors have been reluctant to highlight each and every report as it came along (lamentably, documents and letters of this sort are commonly dismissed as having little news value). However, journalists love a good trend, and, as the BBC's Richard Black noted on this blog, these reports are "beginning to look like a pattern." As such, the press (especially the American press) needs to give this story more comprehensive, high profile treatment.

 

 

The story is primarily about the mounting rebuttal of this winter's assaults on climate scientists and their work, but also about how the scientific process and assessment of research can be improved. Again, all of the inquiries so far have recommended that individual scientists and the IPCC boost transparency and refine some their methodologies, especially where quality control of data and information is concerned. With the panel gearing up for its fifth assessment report, reporters must explore how they are going to do that.

 

Brainard pretty deftly underscores what sort of stories drive coverage: a braying spectacle of scandal-mongering is sure to get attention. Dry, academic studies written by experts, not so much. He hangs his hopes on the media's affection for "trend stories," which always tend to command attention -- though it's better if the "trend" is something that falls within a "style" reporter's bailiwick. Scientists who want to get their news out to the public may want to consider doing so in "listicle" form.

 

As Benen points out, credit Howard Kurtz with carrying the ball here:

 

On CNN yesterday, Howard Kurtz took note of the trend: "The New York Times, to its credit, put this British report on the front page. Most of the major papers I looked at stuck it inside. CNN's 'Situation Room' did a full story on it, but there was not many mentions on cable news, nothing on the broadcast networks."

 

 

This is, unfortunately, quite common. The right erupts with anger, the media treats the "controversy" as a legitimate story, and the public hears all about it. We eventually learn that the story was nonsense, but at that point, the media has lost all interest.

 

WATCH: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007110006

 

 

 

In a futility-themed, hilarious side note, Benen points out that Kurtz calls Fox News infotainer Glenn Beck to task for not revisiting the "Climategate" story now after previously blowing it out of all proportion. (Kurtz mistakes Glenn Beck's eponymous Hour of Glower for a "news show," it seems.)

 

 

Also to your "but plants use CO2" argument, nothing is good for the planet or yourself in excess. Too much oxygen and the atmosphere becomes highly combustible and unstable, likewise you can die from drinking too much water. It honestly surprises me what passes for "controversial" here, we edit out parts of foreign documentaries claiming that global warming is real.

[The Observer]

I fully agree on promoting better care of our environment, but I was never someone sold to the whole doctrine of global warming. There are so many variables that can explain this. However, even without that in play, there are major problems associated with the activities that are generally thought to contribute to it anyway. For example, driving vehicles more often encourages obesity by promoting less activity. Obviously if you drive a car, it does not guarantee that you will be obese, but it does contribute to it. Dumping hazardous rate is bad for the environment for obvious reasons. The list goes on, but as I said, you don't necessarily have to believe in global warming to care about the environment.

[H2PM]

Well yeah global warming is happening. Climate change always happens, there's no avoiding it. Regardless if it's caused by humans. It's going to happen sooner or later.

Why is everyone up in their nickers about it? You know what we are going to do when climate change really hits the highest gear? What humans have been doing, we're going to adapt.

 

It's so pointless to argue whether or not if it's happening. We should be improving our technologies for the inevitable.

[obfuscator]

I think that's one of the big failures of "climate change scientists"; by and large they've failed to prove that human activity is responsible for the current temperature increases. The earth has been warmer than it is now, and will likely be warmer, and colder still.

 

I'm no gung-[garden tool] anti-environmentalist (drill baby drill) - I just don't see the need to believe in some doubtful "global warming" science to care about my planet.

[kamykazee]

I'm no gung-[garden tool] anti-environmentalist (drill baby drill) - I just don't see the need to believe in some doubtful "global warming" science to care about my planet.

 

Motivation to do something does help if not even being the main reason for trying to become "better" at something. If we could just litter as much as we want and emit as much CO2 as we wanted, with hardly any negative effects, there would barely be any reason (and rightly so) to try to reduce them, wouldn't there?

[ilovecuttingyews]

I think that's one of the big failures of "climate change scientists"; by and large they've failed to prove that human activity is responsible for the current temperature increases. The earth has been warmer than it is now, and will likely be warmer, and colder still.

It's true that there is no definitive proof of human caused global warming but through general logic we can see a very high likelyhood.

-Humans produce massive amounts of CO2.

-CO2 is a greenhouse gas that keeps the Earth warm.

-Therefore we can conclude that humans are causing the Earth to warm.

I know, correlation doesn't imply causation, but to me as an environmental science major, all the info that I've learned about how humans interact with the Earth tells me that we're messing with a very touchy and complex system. We may not be the major cause, but our extra little added stress could very well push the Earth past the tipping point to irreversable* warming patters.

 

*irreversable in a human timeframe. The Earth has always fluctuated in temperature but it takes a bloody long time for the natural cycle to correct things.

 

Well yeah global warming is happening. Climate change always happens, there's no avoiding it. Regardless if it's caused by humans. It's going to happen sooner or later.

Why is everyone up in their nickers about it? You know what we are going to do when climate change really hits the highest gear? What humans have been doing, we're going to adapt.

It's so pointless to argue whether or not if it's happening. We should be improving our technologies for the inevitable.

The problem is that modern humans have only been around for what, 10k years? Those last 10k years have been very stable in terms of CO2 and thus climate [see image below] which means that we're not built for change. Of course, we can always rely on technology to bail us out, but like the frog in the boiling pot, when things change slowly, it's hard to know when to jump out.

 

There are massive ancient coral reefs under many of our coastal cities which means that in the past, they were underwater. How much effort, money, and politics is going to be involved with moving entire cities, or building up levies? Future technology can only do so much if we're so neglegent in the present.

 

[Giordano]

I'm glad people aren't going apeshit over global warming anymore.

 

What can be done about global warming? Burn the oil deposits. The faster we get rid of oil, the sooner we'll get briefly overly-expensive, eco-friendly energy from Exxon-Mobile and Shell and whatnot.

 

The only problem the common man has to worry is the couple of months of the transition from oil to eco energy and fuel. Prices will be damn high, but will lower to normal levels.

[jasignhagj]

I'm glad people aren't going apeshit over global warming anymore.

 

What can be done about global warming? Burn the oil deposits. The faster we get rid of oil, the sooner we'll get briefly overly-expensive, eco-friendly energy from Exxon-Mobile and Shell and whatnot.

 

The only problem the common man has to worry is the couple of months of the transition from oil to eco energy and fuel. Prices will be damn high, but will lower to normal levels.

Have we found another source for petroleum based plastics and other goods? We could probably live without oil as a fuel in a few years, but I'm not sure we could live without plastics.

[Giordano]

I'm glad people aren't going apeshit over global warming anymore.

 

What can be done about global warming? Burn the oil deposits. The faster we get rid of oil, the sooner we'll get briefly overly-expensive, eco-friendly energy from Exxon-Mobile and Shell and whatnot.

 

The only problem the common man has to worry is the couple of months of the transition from oil to eco energy and fuel. Prices will be damn high, but will lower to normal levels.

Have we found another source for petroleum based plastics and other goods? We could probably live without oil as a fuel in a few years, but I'm not sure we could live without plastics.

Course "we" did. If 'we' you mean oil-plastic companies. The whole idea, is that the super corporations already have plans to survive the End of Oil.

 

I am not worried in the least.

[Guest Rob]

Imo, if you don't believe global warming is real, you haven't learned enough about it. There would have to be too many coincidences in order for it to not be happening.

[Assume Nothing]

Imo, if you don't believe global warming is real, you haven't learned enough about it. There would have to be too many coincidences in order for it to not be happening.

 

I do believe there has been studies confirming causal link between greenhouse gases and the subsequent rise in temperature. The predictions on the time we have to 'fix' everything, however, is a different story.

[sees_all1]

I think the entirety of "climate change" is a hot mess.

Five years ago it was always "Global Warming". Bleh Bleh Bleh Global Warming Bleh Bleh Bleh. Then they realized that the earth might've been cooling, so it became "Climate Change".

 

This whole business of politics mixing with science mixing with business is complete bullshit. The scientists go to the law makers warning them of catastrophic events in the future if they don't give grant money for their research. The scientists then find a result supporting their claim, rapidly publish it to the media with some trumped up headline to make a name for themselves or to get more grant money for their research.

 

Meanwhile, politicians realize that they can influence the entire economy by regulating carbon based fuels or CO2 emissions. Killing the world's largest free market and controlling the reins is a big government wet dream.

 

Also, business people realize there must be a solution to the trumped up problem and come out with a "free-market" solution of carbon credits. They then invest time in calculating carbon "footprints" and setting up a clearing house to allow trade of these made up carbon credits. Guess who is made a monopoly when this solution is mandated by law makers?

 

We then find out that some of the "science" behind climate change wasn't science at all, but some other motivation. We also find out that one of the biggest reports written - comprehensive - by the IPCC wasn't properly written and one of the biggest scare numbers that the glaciers would be gone in 25 years was in fact a typo, and should've been 300+ years.

 

 

Excuse me, but I'm going to sit this one out. The opinion I've formed thus far is that everything presented to date has had some greedy agenda. The one thing I can't stand is crony capitalism or legislative favors. This entire process has been filled with it. I don't care if the science is correct or the doomsday predictions are true; you've [climate change proponents] already lost my confidence and trust. Try harder next time.

[The Dark Lord]

Climate change is real. I think that the only real controversy that should exist is when the worse will come, not if it will. The fact of the matter is that the world is warming due to increased CO2 levels. Climate change does occur naturally, yes, but climate change is also very dangerous to most if not all species on earth if it happens too rapidly.

 

If you fail to see the consequences associated with this, I suppose that you do not mind paying much higher prices for your meals.

 

I think certain industries have a vested interest in inhibiting any laws that try to reduce human impact on the environment because these laws could damage profits.

 

 

As a side note, I believe all of these so-called "skeptics" don't know enough about the subject. Something that does not surprise me for a generic forum such as Tip.it.

[Giordano]

Climate change is real. I think that the only real controversy that should exist is when the worse will come, not if it will. The fact of the matter is that the world is warming due to increased CO2 levels. Climate change does occur naturally, yes, but climate change is also very dangerous to most if not all species on earth if it happens too rapidly.

 

If you fail to see the consequences associated with this, I suppose that you do not mind paying much higher prices for your meals.

 

I think certain industries have a vested interest in inhibiting any laws that try to reduce human impact on the environment because these laws could damage profits.

 

 

As a side note, I believe all of these so-called "skeptics" don't know enough about the subject. Something that does not surprise me for a generic forum such as Tip.it.

Well of course in a Greenhouse Forum everyone's going to kiss your viewpoint's ass. But not here, not here...

 

How do we stop a naturally occuring event? Either way we're "screwed" according to you. How can we stop industrial giants like corporate America, global oil firms, and Chinese industry to suddenly slow down production? Good luck with that.

[Shiny]

Climate change is real. I think that the only real controversy that should exist is when the worse will come, not if it will. The fact of the matter is that the world is warming due to increased CO2 levels. Climate change does occur naturally, yes, but climate change is also very dangerous to most if not all species on earth if it happens too rapidly.

 

If you fail to see the consequences associated with this, I suppose that you do not mind paying much higher prices for your meals.

 

I think certain industries have a vested interest in inhibiting any laws that try to reduce human impact on the environment because these laws could damage profits.

 

 

As a side note, I believe all of these so-called "skeptics" don't know enough about the subject. Something that does not surprise me for a generic forum such as Tip.it.

Well of course in a Greenhouse Forum everyone's going to kiss your viewpoint's ass. But not here, not here...

 

How do we stop a naturally occuring event? Either way we're "screwed" according to you. How can we stop industrial giants like corporate America, global oil firms, and Chinese industry to suddenly slow down production? Good luck with that.

 

SO what are you telling me Giordano? Better to do nothing and solely not act because we, the common man, can do nothing to stop Corporate America and Chinese Industry? If so, that's a rather cynical and negative viewpoint to hold. Not to mention, detrimental to the environment etc. etc. To not act in the face of great challenge is as bad as resisting change. Have some heart, man.

[Danqazmlp]

I really don't understand how C02 can be evil and destroy the world.

 

 

Well there is the sticking point right there. Studies showing incredibly large coincidences between human activity and the rise in CO2 are out there, things that can show almost no doubt (such as the graph shown on the last page). Ignorance is not a valid reason to argue against climate change.

 

When one side of the argument constantly shows evidence which is close to conclusive, and the other side shows virtually nothing, it's hard to see how people can be sceptical.

[Assume Nothing]

Is it possible that simply a change in state and federal law could allow for a new industry to emerge? Specifically, the hemp market;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_plastic

[ilovecuttingyews]

I think the entirety of "climate change" is a hot mess.

Five years ago it was always "Global Warming". Bleh Bleh Bleh Global Warming Bleh Bleh Bleh. Then they realized that the earth might've been cooling, so it became "Climate Change".

They never realized the Earth was cooling (except for some work done in the '60s which was based on Milankovitch cycles, which are poor indicators on planets with changing atmospheres), in fact, the more studies done, the more we find the Earth is warming faster than we previously though. The focus has switched to climate change because it's the broader problem. Global warming is only one issue withing all of climate change. Climate change includes various other factors such as changing precipitation patterns, desertification, and mass extinctions.. There is no scientific debate about whether or not the Earth is warming, but scientists have stopped calling it 'global warming' because it's only one problem of many.

Meanwhile, politicians realize that they can influence the entire economy by regulating carbon based fuels or CO2 emissions. Killing the world's largest free market and controlling the reins is a big government wet dream.

Markets can only truly be free with perfect information and no externalities. Both of which are not satisfied under current systems. Our current economic system is not adequate for a globalized world. Chances are that a forced labourer in the DR Congo died for the battery in your (and my) cellphones, laptops, etc. Tell me, is that price included in the purchace price? Externalities are HUGE in the globalized economy because we can ship all of the negative effects to the 'third world' and take all the possitives for ourselves. It's not about killing the free market, it's about making the market truly free. That includes taking everything, including the negatice impacts half way accross the world, into account. Sure, some people will profit, but the ones that do are the ones that are doing the thing that`s best for the entire global system.

Also, I`m pretty sure that under proposed `cap and trade`ideas, no one really profits except the people that reduce their CO2 emissions. You don`t buy credits from the government, you buy them from your compedators. So if you have to pay your compedator because he`s being greener than you, why don`t you go and increase your efficiencyÉ. Cap and trade systems fuel innovation in huge ways.