It is true that a fellow at the Cato Institute, Andrei Illarionov, put out a report the claimed that the CRU cherry-picked weather stations in Russia. It was a rather idiotic claim and one denounced by weather organizations in Russia. The CRU does not even choose the the stations that the data comes from. The get the data from the World Meteorological Organisation. At one time in 2008, Illarionov put on his website a response from the WMO but he's now taken it down. The denier blogs never reported the response or the the report came from a economist tied to the Cato Institute with no understanding of what the WMO does and how. At the time Hannity even went on the air with the claim that it was a scathing report from a major climate research organization in Russia; that was complete lie and Hannity never corrected it. The whole thing was totally made-up by Cato. Deniers always jump on any denier news they can get and never check the source or check the facts. They are non-thinkers.
the history of the world clearly shows that there have been naturally occurring ice age and hot-age and the cycle might be repeating now,, but if we don't underestimate the human-caused factors especially the industrial revolution which was so rapid and consumed a great deal of fossil fuel... then clearly this is not the usual case...
This is worthy of a lot of discussion... and I have some really cool ideas to share on...
there have been controversies about the green tax and movies like "an inconvenient truth" and there are some reasonable objections on the both side..
but in my opinion, this is not the usual periodic thing that our earth might have been undergoing for millions of years and this is surely a critical issue...
(email me if you want to discuss with me... :) )
I have suspicion that things don’t add up.
If we have such a bad case of climate change, why don’t we disperse some fine particles in upper atmosphere that will reflect morSun raysys and cool down the runaway Global Warming?
Argument is that we can do something wrong.
Well, when Iceland volcano erupted there were areas with lowered temperatures, so we know that dust in the air works in this case in our favour.
We don’t have to do it on risky scale, just try a little and see what happens.
All Governments want to do now is introduce all sorts of taxes, in my opinion to plug up holes in their budgets.
What do the emails say about
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissio...
2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami...
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://co2now.org/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontr...
4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
5. The Earth's temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
If they say nothing, there is no scientific fraud. You may as well investigate the murder of someone who is walking around.
Are we really feeling important by exposing each side on this issue?
The luxury of life itself depends on carbon whether it's in the air, in the ground, or going through the carbon cycle through photosynthesis. To say that a 4.1% increase in greenhouse gases by humans every year is going to cause the planet to warm profusely is asinine. CO2 has been stated by climate scientists to cause between 20% to 25% of the total warming of the planet. When all of the math is done, humans cause less than 1% of the total warming of the planet. In knowing that humans (forcing the climate to warm up) take up less than 1/3rd of 1 cubic mile in volume, it is revealing that humans really don't have that much effect. The less than 1% of forcing in greenhouse gases by humans is true.
Is "heat in the atmosphere" and our use of carbon based fuels really the issue?
Scandals can always be shown by misinformation. As far as I can see, the biggest scandal "ever" of the past 100 generations (2000 years) is a monetary scandal. Money controls the distribution of information. General information is free, but media information isn't. I don't see the media jumping up and down screaming for people to stop using fossil fuels. I do see several advocates of AGW trying to scream, but the information is very balanced and therefore we have gained nothing.
I recently read this part of an answer on one of the questions here : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
" As CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere will retain more water vapor and yes that extra water vapor will amplify the greenhouse effect of the CO2."
Hello? The "runaway effect" has been dis-proven by climate science itself. This is the biggest misinformation that AGW advocates have been telling us. CO2 has limits in its warming capabilities. If there is truly evidence that shows that there is more moisture in the atmosphere over the whole planet then there was 30 to 40 years ago, then please show this. The climate scientists aren't necessarily the problem. The radical AGW advocates are a problem. Climate-Gate is a problem within the AGW community.
There has never been such a concerted effort to obscure scientific truth as by the denial movement--that is the worst anti-science scandal of our generation.
You should be proud of your part in spreading lies and misinformation.
EDIT: Pat, the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere due to global warming is NOT the "runaway effect," it is simply a consequence of established science, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. There are studies that support increased water vapor in the atmosphere, but that's not something we have an accurate long-term record of. We eventually will get that from GPS sensing though.
The biggest scandal about climate change is 'there is no Scientific consensus ' and other lies from the deniers
Are you telling me you think Al Gore might have lied to get rich..??? Next
you will be telling me rassling is fake..
I think your first assessment is correct. Especially in the amount of dollars scammed and the wrecked economies.
In a an article in the telegraph "Climate change this is the worst scientific scandal ever" in the comments a reader directed towards what Russia's scientist are saying about the use of their data.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/
No, usual denialist lies. Climaregate was a hoax
unfortunately is more true than assumed:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/s...
by the way, why real earth scientists oppose climate change? why leaders of "climate change" have degrees in banking, economy, i know one medicine, but not earth science?
what about documents from east anglia uni? "documenting" data from weather stations which never existed, presenting as current data from stations closed 50 years ago... is this the "truth in research"? or faith... i am an atheist... need facts not faith...
re - negative marks givers - truth hurts? or just my disbelief in propaganda units?
No. Of course it isn't true.
_
ya.i think so.
