"‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth, author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
Officials at a key global warming research center in the United Kingdom, hadley cru, have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.
"{"I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.""
"In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties."
"The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica).
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."
"The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
I saw this topic covered on Wired.com. There are a lot of blogs now dissecting these emails. Some 62mb of text files were hacked. That would take a person years to read. From the snippets Ive read so far, which apparently have been verified on other sites as legit, THIS IS NOT THE SMOKING GUN the loony tunes claim it is. I don't see how any of the emails implicate the CRU scientists' research. Not every experiment goes according to plan. That's why they keep doing them, its the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I don't expect Glenn Beck to understand this since it's not written in the Book of Mormon.
Now, what is concerning are the emails clearly instructing researchers to destroy information files in response to freedom of information requests. This is a federal crime in America and probably in Great Britain as well, though the files discussing how to suppress skeptic papers and lean on scientific journals could very well just be dismissed as politics among scientists, and not as bad.
Good job wingnuts. You continue to denounce the obvious and possibly ruin the careers of many talented people.
Its amazing this isnt a news story in the United States. In England its getting covered. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson, notes the CRU scandal in the TimesOnline:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay"
Seriously, Klompus, what if your work email was hacked by a client, and they saw the kind of trash-talk, kludges, spin, and general messiness that goes on under the hood as we put their buildings together? C'mon.
this does not in fact damage the integrity of the scientists involved - it damages, through deliberate distortions, the public's understanding of scientific method and peer review.
selective editing of 64mb of emails will easily produce anything one wants it to. in fact, you could edit these emails to produce a duplicate version of Hamlet.
the fact is that this isn't the "smoking gun" that the sceptics are hoping. more interesting is the way that these emails were hacked, when they were hacked, when they were made public and what major climate change debates are happening in the next few weeks.
can someone explain to me what the motive for creating a global warming conspiracy is? who benefits from such a hoax? who do the skeptics think is responsible?
Its actually kind of funny to think about a handful of scientist conspiring to see how far they could take it... "what are they going to do? conduct their OWN experiments? collect their OWN data? HAHAHA! i mean c'mon, we're capital 'S' scientists!"
can someone explain to me what the motive for creating a global warming conspiracy is? who benefits from such a hoax? who do the skeptics think is responsible?
people who benefit:
-professors/researchers/scientists who get government grant money to study the 'problem'. they have learned that man-made global warming studies get lots of cash.
-people like al gore who have invested in businesses that stand to benefit from cap and trade and other similar government policies. al gore's net worth has gone from something like $2 million after his presidential election was 'stolen' to about $100 million today.
and i don't mind that al gore invests in what he believes in but i do think it is a conflict of interest to do what he does (push for huge government intervention to solve the 'problem').
-politicians who see that fear can get them votes. 'elect me and i will solve the global warming crisis. if you vote for the other guy you're going to drown in 20 years!'.
and i don't think global warming hysteria is a conspiracy. i just think it's natural to be swayed by the cash and to believe that we are more powerful and important than we are - that we can control the climate.
how is it not OK for al gore to something similar to what big business, et al have been doing for generations, at the expense of the common folk and out natural resources?
This isnt about if climate change is real or a hoax, this is about;
A. Is climate change man made or natural or a combination and if so how much
B. Do we over react to the threat? If so what are the implecations?
No one is saying lets burn all the oil and cut down the trees. The skeptics are saying lets slow down and get this right. When Gordon Brown says we have 30 days or else, thats complete wankery on a Gore-like level.
You guys obviously dont understand just who these people in this email circle are. The CRU is the leading climate research institute. These are the scientists who lead the IPCC, the council of scientists that release the UN studies. The "thousands of scientists are in agreement" line is a direct reference to these 2500 who make up the IPCC. But they arent in agreement, and dissention is squashed.
a. um, to most dittoheads that listen to rush/hannity or other anti-science morons like inhofe, it is a ‘hoax’.
b. no one is overreacting to the threat by any means. if anything, they’ve under reacted.
gordon brown didn’t say we had ‘30 days or else’, he said there was a lot to do in 30 days.
none of the cru staff are lead authors of the ipcc. there weren’t 2500 scientists making up the ipcc.
scientists are in agreement, actually. the ones that aren’t in agreement haven’t been peer-reviewed (we already went over this, jack)
and i did look over about 150 emails. nothing damning here, no made up data, no conspiracy. just frustration at wasted time and expense responding to morons bent on keeping us in the 1800s.
why do you insist on continuously making up ridiculous lies, jack. it’s rather pathetic.
Michael Mann was lead author of the 2001 IPCC report on climate change. Thats about as in the circle as you can get Holz. Im not a liar, I am not a denier. I think you might be the one in denial.
Heres some of the accusations derived from the emails;
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article; Allowed by whom?
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report
earth is a dynamic place. in a general sense, it doesn't really matter whether it's getting hotter or colder. the details only matter when you're trying to trick someone out of money.
it's a bit like how all of these wall street/finance big shots keep insisting that there is a "financial crisis" and then the public keeps handing them billions. a bunch of scientists insist on an environmental crisis to keep their own money train rolling.
now, if architects were really smart, we'd claim there was a imminent "architecture crisis" rather than always crying about how we have no money.
earth is a dynamic place. in a general sense, it doesn't really matter whether it's getting hotter or colder. the details only matter when you're trying to trick someone out of money.
it's a bit like how all of these wall street/finance big shots keep insisting that there is a "financial crisis" and then the public keeps handing them billions. a bunch of scientists insist on an environmental crisis to keep their own money train rolling.
now, if architects were really smart, we'd claim there was a imminent "architecture crisis" rather than always crying about how we have no money.
if we examine this on a basis of motive only, and leave the science out of it since skeptics find it insufficient, who HONESTLY has the most transparent motive for confirming or denying climate change?
And what, in the end, would the consequences of those motives be on both side?
I just dont buy that there is some grand conspiracy to produce wanted data. I dont buy that the majority of scientists in the field have been bought or otherwise compromised. There are FAR more powerful big wigs who stand to profit from climate change being refuted than those who would profit from certain proof...
the whole argument against climate change is irrational...
why would you willfully maintain ignorance?
we already know that we have the capability to create acid rain, and contaminate rivers, lakes and ground water reserves to the point that they become off limits to all life. We already know that in a few decades we can create a mass of plastic floating in the ocean bigger than most states, and we already know that the releasing of fossil fuels and CO2 into the atmosphere has ONLY negative consequences... i just dont understand why you would argue for something we already know to be destructive...
Letdown, you are absolutely correct. This isn’t about climate change, this is about who's responsible, and by how much. Of course we should conserve and pollute as little as possible, however tied to the idea of man made global warming are serious restructurings of our economic system, control over manufacturing centers and general way of life issues. If the science isn’t settled, then why the rush to judgment?
Remember, the IPCC is the most vocal, the most influential and yet closed group of scientists out there, and backed by the UN. The IPCC has a history of blocking papers and contradictory evidence, strong arming journals that dont agree and possibly tampering with data to make it appear more extreme.
Maybe thats why they have monopolized the debate for so long.
FRaC - no one is saying humans "control" the climate - the science shows that human activity "contributes" to the accumulation of CO2. the science shows that the increased accumulation of CO2 is contributing to global warming. The science shows that continued climate change due to CO2 will have severe effects on ice caps, rain, desertification. these are facts agreed across the VAST majority of climate scientists.
puddles - we know you like to be the contrarian, but it is the large, CO2 emitting industries - coal, oil, automotive, that have a vested interest in not believe the science and hoping to keep the status quo. given the scale of their investments over the last 100 years, you can see who has the most to LOSE - as opposed to the idea that this debate is being driven by those who have something to gain.
J Klompus - when you actually have some hard data to counter the science, then perhaps you would be so kind as to share it. as has been noted on many sites, over the last few days, the emails DO NOT show an effort to conceal the truth - they show a frustration with the sceptics who won't accept scientifically qualified research. they show a frustration with the pseudo-scientists - funded by industries - to keep changing the gaol-posts with the research. They take an advocacy position which states that if the sceptics can't be convinced based on traditional scientific methodologies, then the scientific community has to start playing hard-ball with the sceptics. one can't be all welcoming and niceness when the enemies of science will use any method possible to sow doubt and disinformation - then cry censorship when they don't get treated as equals in peer review pubiications. Kind of like the Palin-lovers and their "death-panels" - never let the facts get in the way of a good scare tactic.
"It seems so reasonable to call for debate on this issue, but this is a flawed view. Unless you are a climate scientist yourself, you are a fool to doubt the overwhelming consensus of those who are. Calling for debate on this issue is like calling for debate on evolution. The debate is settled."
Jack... im afraid the science is in. If you refuse to trust the opinions of large majority of people who spend their lifes researching such topics, id like to know why you even bother listening to scientific opinions in the first place?
If you choose to write off a preponderance of evidence as doctored... i would also like to know what makes you believe contrarian science is NOT doctored?
Diabase, that quote is right on, and seems to be what you hear more often than not... there will always be a portion of the population who willfully maintains their ignorance if its counter to some now deformed belief.
There is a book by sherwood anderson called winesburgh ohio... in it there is a short story about a man who's mind constantly spawns new ideas and truths about the world around him; they come often and each exhilarates him.
To keep track of the most valuable of them, he scribbles them down on little scraps of paper and shoves them in his pockets. As the week draws on, his pockets get filled with these truths he has written down, and so he empties his pockets only to see that the scraps have been destroyed and rendered illegible by the tight grasp on them he has maintained over the course of days.
there is probably some truth to either side of the issue. but because so many files were hacked, it's difficult for any of us to analyze very many of them without taking them out of context. besides, we've only been studying the climate in real-time for the past couple hundred years or so, that is a mere instant in geological time. do i really think the polar ice caps are going to melt in the next 10 years due to global warming? not anymore than i think that these emails are real proof that global warming isn't happening at all, and that it isn't being ecouraged by human activity. this thread is very soon going to deteriorate into the same old rhetoric between liberals and conservatives who are making predicable arguments based on what they want to believe more than any objective form of evidence or arguement one way or another.
Thats really sweet Letdown, I read the same book in 8th grade, its a classic. I am not being ignorant here. You realize the entire global warming hysteria has been in a period less than the time you have been alive most likely? I would wager you've never been taught anything but the fact that man is destroying the earth. How can one argue against an entire generation who knows no other truth than the one they are told?
In my vain attempt at offering some science please look at the mean temperature graph
The slope of the mean is and has been consistent since before mass fossil fuel combustion. The hockey stick graph everyone has been force fed for the last 15 years where the temps just shoot up exponentially is quite possibly wrong, and the emails even discuss it.
Clearly the Earth is getting warmer, as it has in the past, but does that mean its our fault and does that mean we need to adopt "radical measures" to stop it?
I'd like to offer a story of my own. There was a horrific attack on a major city perpetuated by a man in a cave. The entire nation stood together behind their leader who vowed to smoke the man out of his hole. The congress appropriated funds for war. The news media beat the drum. And congress stood solidly behind the man who knew best for everyone. Afterall, he had the best minds in the military and secret ops working on it and an international coalition. They had the best of intentions.
That response from 'George' is on the pro-AGW response from that webpage.
My point is that it sums up the regular and rather disturbing pro-AGW p.o.v, namely:
Debate is over or not warranted
Climate scientists should only be able to comment
Disagreement with consensus is foolish
Well, from that argument, any opinion derived outside of the narrow confines of climatology should be binned - including that authors own.
Secondly, I thought it was quite a well-honoured tradition that a consensus should always be questioned - or am I missing something? When did we all start becoming totalitarian?
Heres the data from the longest continualy monitering weather station in the world, oddly enough located near the CRU facility in England. It is interesting to say the least.
I'd like to offer a story of my own. There was a horrific attack on a major city perpetuated by a man in a cave. The entire nation stood together behind their leader who vowed to smoke the man out of his hole. The congress appropriated funds for war. The news media beat the drum. And congress stood solidly behind the man who knew best for everyone. Afterall, he had the best minds in the military and secret ops working on it and an international coalition. They had the best of intentions.
I think you know how that turned out.
the part you left out was that the leader intentionally dismissed what his advisers were telling him, what scientists were telling him, what the UN was telling him - because god told him otherwise. and royally fucked up not one, but two wars, then fiddled while the economy stumbled off a 10 meter platform, slamming it's skull onto the springboard and scattering it's collective guts all over the pool.
yeah, i'll take the current situation over that anyday...
it must be hard dwelling in a life so detached from the real world, jack.
I think the big difference here is the difference in terminology most people don't understand.
Climate change is different than global warming.
While their definitions now are intertwined more than ever, climate change is more or less the concept that weather patterns are changing drastically from previous accounts.
This by extension could also include weathering.
Anthropogenic climate change is an inarguable concept for many reasons-- climate change is not about carbon dioxide and warming anymore. There is at least a dozen natural chemical cycles present that have been dangerously compromised by human activity.
Turning this into a carbon scream off isn't helping anything.
Let's take an example from the more conservative side that global warming is a hoax and we'll take one of their points:
The Azolla event proves the earth has been in a general climatic cool down for millions of years.
It only proves one thing-- that the spread of duckweed and waterferns has had a tremendous effect on global climate.
What is something we have been doing aggressively over the past 100-years? Draining every lake, swamp, bog and flood plain we can. Any place where there's a natural lake or a natural water feature often gets widened dredged and aerated that prevents the growth of things like Azollas.
Whether we're emitting carbon or not, we're drastically reducing the capacity of the planet to handle carbon and to maintain its own temperature.
And there's bigger issues at work here and we've been interrupting big complicated cycles for a long time that we've only begun to understand.
I do think we're rapidly changing the climate (and climate really just means temperature, humidity and pressure) but I think we're doing it in more ways than just carbon.
All and all, these arguments are just silly.
This is what is going to happen-- we'll fight over it til we find a middle ground.
Well, that middle ground really just sucks. But since finding that middle ground is a "testament" to our ability to be "civil" and have "democracy," you violate this whole "understanding" by criticizing or complaining about it.
This is going to lead to another civil war (wars have been fought over much more stupid things [tea tax anyone]) if we follow down this path.
If someone doesn't give, none of us will win and everything will be in vain to make something work that just clearly doesn't.
Warming diagnosis: beyond worst case
ADAM MORTON
November 25, 2009
KEY climate change measures are tracking near or beyond worse-case scenarios predicted just two years ago, according to a science update drawing on more than 200 recently published studies.
Co-authored by 26 climate scientists, The Copenhagen Diagnosis reports that melting of summer Arctic sea ice, loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and projections of the rise in sea levels have accelerated dramatically since 2007.
It finds the statistical global warming trend has continued over the past decade, contradicting assessments by some scientists - including Copenhagen Climate Council chairman Tim Flannery - that there has been a recent cooling.
The review cites NASA data that shows a trend of a 0.19-degree increase over the past decade despite short-term fluctuations due to El Nino, solar variability and volcanic eruptions.
Matthew England, co-director of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, said the world's three leading climate data series showed claims of temperatures cooling were ''patently untrue''.
''These are the data set even the sceptics go to, and they show that the last 10 years has been one of warming even if you start in [the particularly hot] 1998,'' Professor England said.
''Since 2001, every year has been among the top-10 warmest on record. I don't think that is cooling.''
The diagnosis is billed as a supplement to the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and aimed at influencing debate at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. Most of the scientists behind it are intergovernmental panel authors.
Its major findings include:
■ Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production were nearly 40 per cent higher in 2008 than in 1990.
■ Global air temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns cannot be explained without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions.
■ Satellite and ice measurements show the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are increasingly losing mass. Each adds up to 0.7 millimetres a year to sea level rise.
■ The recent rate of summer Arctic see ice melting is unprecedented in at least 2000 years and about 40 per cent greater than average IPCC predictions.
■ Sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be much greater than the 18-59 centimetres predicted by the UN panel. Failure to cut emissions could lead to a rise of more than a metre. The worse-case scenario is roughly two metres (though unlikely).
■ Localised tipping points, where changes happen abruptly, are possible this century at some sites. But despite talk of ''runaway climate change'', there is no strong evidence that the entire planet is near that threshold.
The report estimates global temperatures could rise by seven degrees by 2100. Emissions would need to peak in the next five to 10 years to limit warming to two degrees.
I have limited freedom as a result of the government bringing down the economy in my country. 45% of architects are unemployed.
No money = very little room to manouvre. Plus we are getting another budget early next month which is going to be really tough.
So therefore having researched the environmental movement extensively, I know it is a con.
Paying billions in carbon taxes are the last thing any sane government would decide to do in such economic times. However the western world as we knew it is over.
Well, it would be good to know which country you are from and what you're exactly unhappy with.
What I find surprising is often people point blame to the federal or national government when, in reality, the centralized government has often very little to do with quality of life or your buying power.
If you want to blame people for your life being less than desirable, point your finger at your local council, township or estate.
A lot of people in the western world lament the fact that "old Europe" or "Main Street, USA" or "Small Towns" type economies and attitudes have died off... but few if any people are actively trying to maintain that "lifestyle."
In fact, a lot of environmental issues are tied to that very idea.
I like to refer to that concept as "petit urbanism." Try buying a shop, make $40,000 dollars (USD) off of it. Then add the complication of financing a parking lot.
The mortgage on 12 parking spaces is about 600 dollars a month.
zoo, limited freedom is when you aren't allowed to drive a car because of your gender or aren't allowed to publicly criticize someone who's oppressing you. As Orochi pointed out you may have limited buying power but that doesn't translate to limited freedom.
Isn't freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?
Perhaps carbon taxing is not a good idea, but carbon/emission cap trading is definitely a step in the right direction. With the current "western world" system, without DIRECT profit from being better for the environment, corporations will continue their dirty practices. This at least provides FINANCIAL incentive to perhaps think twice about what they're really doing.
So you may think climate change/global warming may not exist, or at least not caused by human influence. Still, I don't understand why that is always the key issue. Perhaps we've watched too many end-of-the-world scenarios that show loud and dramatic events like tsunamis, insane storms, etc. Not only is pollution and exploitation of natural resources slowly and quietly impacting human health and livelihood currently, its hurting biodiversity and ecosystems that in the long run will impact us in a bigger way. I think of it as an investment, although there may not be a return on the investment in our lifetime.
What has always interested me and something I think everyone can learn from, is how some indigenous people think of ownership and nature in general. Not only do they think it is ridiculous to "own" something that lasts longer than they do, but they think that they are "borrowing" the land (and nature in general) from future generations. This sense of ownership has allowed us to exploit it instead of caring for it like something we've borrowed.
None of us will be able to afford* (read ALLOWED) to drive a car when all the carbon taxes are introduced, along with increased fuel prices, because we cannot afford to run a vehicle.
Limited buying power relates directly to limited freedom.
LB, its a race to the bottom at the minute, blacks, whites, whatever colour, gender etc, we all going under if the government get its way.
Another prominent global warming alarmist, Tim Flannery, now admits that there are holes in the “science is settled” mantra.
“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend,” said Flannery.
“And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?” asks Andrew Bolt.
ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE, PAY BILLIONS IN SHAM TAXES, AND LOSE WHATEVER JOBS ARE LEFT IN THE WESTERN WORLD?
Climate Change Emails Hacked
"‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth, author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
Officials at a key global warming research center in the United Kingdom, hadley cru, have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.
Read some of the hacked emails here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Oh, 2chan... you are adorable.
Someones already posted the emails in a searchable website.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php
"{"I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.""
"In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties."
"The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica).
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."
"The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
I saw this topic covered on Wired.com. There are a lot of blogs now dissecting these emails. Some 62mb of text files were hacked. That would take a person years to read. From the snippets Ive read so far, which apparently have been verified on other sites as legit, THIS IS NOT THE SMOKING GUN the loony tunes claim it is. I don't see how any of the emails implicate the CRU scientists' research. Not every experiment goes according to plan. That's why they keep doing them, its the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I don't expect Glenn Beck to understand this since it's not written in the Book of Mormon.
Now, what is concerning are the emails clearly instructing researchers to destroy information files in response to freedom of information requests. This is a federal crime in America and probably in Great Britain as well, though the files discussing how to suppress skeptic papers and lean on scientific journals could very well just be dismissed as politics among scientists, and not as bad.
Good job wingnuts. You continue to denounce the obvious and possibly ruin the careers of many talented people.
Its amazing this isnt a news story in the United States. In England its getting covered. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson, notes the CRU scandal in the TimesOnline:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay"
I suppose He is a wing nut as well?
Oh my god, scientists talk about stuff!!!
Seriously, Klompus, what if your work email was hacked by a client, and they saw the kind of trash-talk, kludges, spin, and general messiness that goes on under the hood as we put their buildings together? C'mon.
all light and no heat.
this does not in fact damage the integrity of the scientists involved - it damages, through deliberate distortions, the public's understanding of scientific method and peer review.
selective editing of 64mb of emails will easily produce anything one wants it to. in fact, you could edit these emails to produce a duplicate version of Hamlet.
the fact is that this isn't the "smoking gun" that the sceptics are hoping. more interesting is the way that these emails were hacked, when they were hacked, when they were made public and what major climate change debates are happening in the next few weeks.
for some insight, read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change
can someone explain to me what the motive for creating a global warming conspiracy is? who benefits from such a hoax? who do the skeptics think is responsible?
...it gives them popularity and recognition? I mean, what the hell would Al Gore do with his time if not for (the now alleged) global warming?
Its actually kind of funny to think about a handful of scientist conspiring to see how far they could take it... "what are they going to do? conduct their OWN experiments? collect their OWN data? HAHAHA! i mean c'mon, we're capital 'S' scientists!"
people who benefit:
-professors/researchers/scientists who get government grant money to study the 'problem'. they have learned that man-made global warming studies get lots of cash.
-people like al gore who have invested in businesses that stand to benefit from cap and trade and other similar government policies. al gore's net worth has gone from something like $2 million after his presidential election was 'stolen' to about $100 million today.
and i don't mind that al gore invests in what he believes in but i do think it is a conflict of interest to do what he does (push for huge government intervention to solve the 'problem').
-politicians who see that fear can get them votes. 'elect me and i will solve the global warming crisis. if you vote for the other guy you're going to drown in 20 years!'.
and i don't think global warming hysteria is a conspiracy. i just think it's natural to be swayed by the cash and to believe that we are more powerful and important than we are - that we can control the climate.
FRaC
how is it not OK for al gore to something similar to what big business, et al have been doing for generations, at the expense of the common folk and out natural resources?
or are you just a hypocrite?
This isnt about if climate change is real or a hoax, this is about;
A. Is climate change man made or natural or a combination and if so how much
B. Do we over react to the threat? If so what are the implecations?
No one is saying lets burn all the oil and cut down the trees. The skeptics are saying lets slow down and get this right. When Gordon Brown says we have 30 days or else, thats complete wankery on a Gore-like level.
You guys obviously dont understand just who these people in this email circle are. The CRU is the leading climate research institute. These are the scientists who lead the IPCC, the council of scientists that release the UN studies. The "thousands of scientists are in agreement" line is a direct reference to these 2500 who make up the IPCC. But they arent in agreement, and dissention is squashed.
Read the emails.
a. um, to most dittoheads that listen to rush/hannity or other anti-science morons like inhofe, it is a ‘hoax’.
b. no one is overreacting to the threat by any means. if anything, they’ve under reacted.
gordon brown didn’t say we had ‘30 days or else’, he said there was a lot to do in 30 days.
none of the cru staff are lead authors of the ipcc. there weren’t 2500 scientists making up the ipcc.
scientists are in agreement, actually. the ones that aren’t in agreement haven’t been peer-reviewed (we already went over this, jack)
and i did look over about 150 emails. nothing damning here, no made up data, no conspiracy. just frustration at wasted time and expense responding to morons bent on keeping us in the 1800s.
why do you insist on continuously making up ridiculous lies, jack. it’s rather pathetic.
Michael Mann was lead author of the 2001 IPCC report on climate change. Thats about as in the circle as you can get Holz. Im not a liar, I am not a denier. I think you might be the one in denial.
Heres some of the accusations derived from the emails;
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article; Allowed by whom?
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report
Holz - the emails clearly say how to rig peer reviewed papers and kick out the ones that they disagree with. Keep your blinders on.
earth is a dynamic place. in a general sense, it doesn't really matter whether it's getting hotter or colder. the details only matter when you're trying to trick someone out of money.
it's a bit like how all of these wall street/finance big shots keep insisting that there is a "financial crisis" and then the public keeps handing them billions. a bunch of scientists insist on an environmental crisis to keep their own money train rolling.
now, if architects were really smart, we'd claim there was a imminent "architecture crisis" rather than always crying about how we have no money.
earth is a dynamic place. in a general sense, it doesn't really matter whether it's getting hotter or colder. the details only matter when you're trying to trick someone out of money.
it's a bit like how all of these wall street/finance big shots keep insisting that there is a "financial crisis" and then the public keeps handing them billions. a bunch of scientists insist on an environmental crisis to keep their own money train rolling.
now, if architects were really smart, we'd claim there was a imminent "architecture crisis" rather than always crying about how we have no money.
jack,
michael mann never worked @ cru. stop lying.
so when linden’s emails get hacked and it comes out they conspired to make up journals and bypass the peer-review system, what will you say then?
oh wait, they already admitted to that.
please stop being such a hypocritical douchebag, jackie.
it’s very lame.
Michael Mann is in the email chains conversing with CRU. Im sorry you must resort to name calling, it must be hard being you.
The list is a whos is who of climate researchers. Why are you spinning this?
In other Alarmist news; Polar Bears being dropped from airplanes, a new low in scare tactics
http://www.breitbart.tv/new-climate-change-shock-ad-features-polar-bears-falling-to-bloody-deaths/
if we examine this on a basis of motive only, and leave the science out of it since skeptics find it insufficient, who HONESTLY has the most transparent motive for confirming or denying climate change?
And what, in the end, would the consequences of those motives be on both side?
I just dont buy that there is some grand conspiracy to produce wanted data. I dont buy that the majority of scientists in the field have been bought or otherwise compromised. There are FAR more powerful big wigs who stand to profit from climate change being refuted than those who would profit from certain proof...
the whole argument against climate change is irrational...
why would you willfully maintain ignorance?
we already know that we have the capability to create acid rain, and contaminate rivers, lakes and ground water reserves to the point that they become off limits to all life. We already know that in a few decades we can create a mass of plastic floating in the ocean bigger than most states, and we already know that the releasing of fossil fuels and CO2 into the atmosphere has ONLY negative consequences... i just dont understand why you would argue for something we already know to be destructive...
Letdown, you are absolutely correct. This isn’t about climate change, this is about who's responsible, and by how much. Of course we should conserve and pollute as little as possible, however tied to the idea of man made global warming are serious restructurings of our economic system, control over manufacturing centers and general way of life issues. If the science isn’t settled, then why the rush to judgment?
Remember, the IPCC is the most vocal, the most influential and yet closed group of scientists out there, and backed by the UN. The IPCC has a history of blocking papers and contradictory evidence, strong arming journals that dont agree and possibly tampering with data to make it appear more extreme.
Maybe thats why they have monopolized the debate for so long.
FRaC - no one is saying humans "control" the climate - the science shows that human activity "contributes" to the accumulation of CO2. the science shows that the increased accumulation of CO2 is contributing to global warming. The science shows that continued climate change due to CO2 will have severe effects on ice caps, rain, desertification. these are facts agreed across the VAST majority of climate scientists.
puddles - we know you like to be the contrarian, but it is the large, CO2 emitting industries - coal, oil, automotive, that have a vested interest in not believe the science and hoping to keep the status quo. given the scale of their investments over the last 100 years, you can see who has the most to LOSE - as opposed to the idea that this debate is being driven by those who have something to gain.
J Klompus - when you actually have some hard data to counter the science, then perhaps you would be so kind as to share it. as has been noted on many sites, over the last few days, the emails DO NOT show an effort to conceal the truth - they show a frustration with the sceptics who won't accept scientifically qualified research. they show a frustration with the pseudo-scientists - funded by industries - to keep changing the gaol-posts with the research. They take an advocacy position which states that if the sceptics can't be convinced based on traditional scientific methodologies, then the scientific community has to start playing hard-ball with the sceptics. one can't be all welcoming and niceness when the enemies of science will use any method possible to sow doubt and disinformation - then cry censorship when they don't get treated as equals in peer review pubiications. Kind of like the Palin-lovers and their "death-panels" - never let the facts get in the way of a good scare tactic.
Here's an irrational and flawed point of view:
"It seems so reasonable to call for debate on this issue, but this is a flawed view. Unless you are a climate scientist yourself, you are a fool to doubt the overwhelming consensus of those who are. Calling for debate on this issue is like calling for debate on evolution. The debate is settled."
George Morgan
Part II architectural assistant
Excerpted from here: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3153014&channel=783&c=2&encCode=0000000001a7420b
Debate over the ideas is not possible in dealing with such irrational and hysterical people.
I would have thought that the leaked emails at least show that all is not pure & white on the 'we're all going to die' side.
And lets also be honest here: both sides have vested interests.
Jack... im afraid the science is in. If you refuse to trust the opinions of large majority of people who spend their lifes researching such topics, id like to know why you even bother listening to scientific opinions in the first place?
If you choose to write off a preponderance of evidence as doctored... i would also like to know what makes you believe contrarian science is NOT doctored?
Diabase, that quote is right on, and seems to be what you hear more often than not... there will always be a portion of the population who willfully maintains their ignorance if its counter to some now deformed belief.
There is a book by sherwood anderson called winesburgh ohio... in it there is a short story about a man who's mind constantly spawns new ideas and truths about the world around him; they come often and each exhilarates him.
To keep track of the most valuable of them, he scribbles them down on little scraps of paper and shoves them in his pockets. As the week draws on, his pockets get filled with these truths he has written down, and so he empties his pockets only to see that the scraps have been destroyed and rendered illegible by the tight grasp on them he has maintained over the course of days.
there is probably some truth to either side of the issue. but because so many files were hacked, it's difficult for any of us to analyze very many of them without taking them out of context. besides, we've only been studying the climate in real-time for the past couple hundred years or so, that is a mere instant in geological time. do i really think the polar ice caps are going to melt in the next 10 years due to global warming? not anymore than i think that these emails are real proof that global warming isn't happening at all, and that it isn't being ecouraged by human activity. this thread is very soon going to deteriorate into the same old rhetoric between liberals and conservatives who are making predicable arguments based on what they want to believe more than any objective form of evidence or arguement one way or another.
Thats really sweet Letdown, I read the same book in 8th grade, its a classic. I am not being ignorant here. You realize the entire global warming hysteria has been in a period less than the time you have been alive most likely? I would wager you've never been taught anything but the fact that man is destroying the earth. How can one argue against an entire generation who knows no other truth than the one they are told?
In my vain attempt at offering some science please look at the mean temperature graph
2000 year temp graph
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
Recent period temp
http://www.threesources.com/global%20temperature%201979-2008.jpg
The slope of the mean is and has been consistent since before mass fossil fuel combustion. The hockey stick graph everyone has been force fed for the last 15 years where the temps just shoot up exponentially is quite possibly wrong, and the emails even discuss it.
Clearly the Earth is getting warmer, as it has in the past, but does that mean its our fault and does that mean we need to adopt "radical measures" to stop it?
I'd like to offer a story of my own. There was a horrific attack on a major city perpetuated by a man in a cave. The entire nation stood together behind their leader who vowed to smoke the man out of his hole. The congress appropriated funds for war. The news media beat the drum. And congress stood solidly behind the man who knew best for everyone. Afterall, he had the best minds in the military and secret ops working on it and an international coalition. They had the best of intentions.
I think you know how that turned out.
lletdownl,
That response from 'George' is on the pro-AGW response from that webpage.
My point is that it sums up the regular and rather disturbing pro-AGW p.o.v, namely:
Debate is over or not warranted
Climate scientists should only be able to comment
Disagreement with consensus is foolish
Well, from that argument, any opinion derived outside of the narrow confines of climatology should be binned - including that authors own.
Secondly, I thought it was quite a well-honoured tradition that a consensus should always be questioned - or am I missing something? When did we all start becoming totalitarian?
Heres the data from the longest continualy monitering weather station in the world, oddly enough located near the CRU facility in England. It is interesting to say the least.
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
come on guys Im super cereal here
I think you know how that turned out.
the part you left out was that the leader intentionally dismissed what his advisers were telling him, what scientists were telling him, what the UN was telling him - because god told him otherwise. and royally fucked up not one, but two wars, then fiddled while the economy stumbled off a 10 meter platform, slamming it's skull onto the springboard and scattering it's collective guts all over the pool.
yeah, i'll take the current situation over that anyday...
it must be hard dwelling in a life so detached from the real world, jack.
I think the big difference here is the difference in terminology most people don't understand.
Climate change is different than global warming.
While their definitions now are intertwined more than ever, climate change is more or less the concept that weather patterns are changing drastically from previous accounts.
This by extension could also include weathering.
Anthropogenic climate change is an inarguable concept for many reasons-- climate change is not about carbon dioxide and warming anymore. There is at least a dozen natural chemical cycles present that have been dangerously compromised by human activity.
Turning this into a carbon scream off isn't helping anything.
Let's take an example from the more conservative side that global warming is a hoax and we'll take one of their points:
The Azolla event proves the earth has been in a general climatic cool down for millions of years.
It only proves one thing-- that the spread of duckweed and waterferns has had a tremendous effect on global climate.
What is something we have been doing aggressively over the past 100-years? Draining every lake, swamp, bog and flood plain we can. Any place where there's a natural lake or a natural water feature often gets widened dredged and aerated that prevents the growth of things like Azollas.
Whether we're emitting carbon or not, we're drastically reducing the capacity of the planet to handle carbon and to maintain its own temperature.
And there's bigger issues at work here and we've been interrupting big complicated cycles for a long time that we've only begun to understand.
I do think we're rapidly changing the climate (and climate really just means temperature, humidity and pressure) but I think we're doing it in more ways than just carbon.
All and all, these arguments are just silly.
This is what is going to happen-- we'll fight over it til we find a middle ground.
Well, that middle ground really just sucks. But since finding that middle ground is a "testament" to our ability to be "civil" and have "democracy," you violate this whole "understanding" by criticizing or complaining about it.
This is going to lead to another civil war (wars have been fought over much more stupid things [tea tax anyone]) if we follow down this path.
If someone doesn't give, none of us will win and everything will be in vain to make something work that just clearly doesn't.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
From The Age newspaper; 25.11.2009
Warming diagnosis: beyond worst case
ADAM MORTON
November 25, 2009
KEY climate change measures are tracking near or beyond worse-case scenarios predicted just two years ago, according to a science update drawing on more than 200 recently published studies.
Co-authored by 26 climate scientists, The Copenhagen Diagnosis reports that melting of summer Arctic sea ice, loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and projections of the rise in sea levels have accelerated dramatically since 2007.
It finds the statistical global warming trend has continued over the past decade, contradicting assessments by some scientists - including Copenhagen Climate Council chairman Tim Flannery - that there has been a recent cooling.
The review cites NASA data that shows a trend of a 0.19-degree increase over the past decade despite short-term fluctuations due to El Nino, solar variability and volcanic eruptions.
Matthew England, co-director of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, said the world's three leading climate data series showed claims of temperatures cooling were ''patently untrue''.
''These are the data set even the sceptics go to, and they show that the last 10 years has been one of warming even if you start in [the particularly hot] 1998,'' Professor England said.
''Since 2001, every year has been among the top-10 warmest on record. I don't think that is cooling.''
The diagnosis is billed as a supplement to the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and aimed at influencing debate at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. Most of the scientists behind it are intergovernmental panel authors.
Its major findings include:
■ Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production were nearly 40 per cent higher in 2008 than in 1990.
■ Global air temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns cannot be explained without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions.
■ Satellite and ice measurements show the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are increasingly losing mass. Each adds up to 0.7 millimetres a year to sea level rise.
■ The recent rate of summer Arctic see ice melting is unprecedented in at least 2000 years and about 40 per cent greater than average IPCC predictions.
■ Sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be much greater than the 18-59 centimetres predicted by the UN panel. Failure to cut emissions could lead to a rise of more than a metre. The worse-case scenario is roughly two metres (though unlikely).
■ Localised tipping points, where changes happen abruptly, are possible this century at some sites. But despite talk of ''runaway climate change'', there is no strong evidence that the entire planet is near that threshold.
The report estimates global temperatures could rise by seven degrees by 2100. Emissions would need to peak in the next five to 10 years to limit warming to two degrees.
Full document:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CON.
These document prove it.
And the sheeple here still believe in man made global warming, you lot are calling for your own chains.
zoolander, honey, what exactly do you DO with all your "freedom"?
I have limited freedom as a result of the government bringing down the economy in my country. 45% of architects are unemployed.
No money = very little room to manouvre. Plus we are getting another budget early next month which is going to be really tough.
So therefore having researched the environmental movement extensively, I know it is a con.
Paying billions in carbon taxes are the last thing any sane government would decide to do in such economic times. However the western world as we knew it is over.
Well, it would be good to know which country you are from and what you're exactly unhappy with.
What I find surprising is often people point blame to the federal or national government when, in reality, the centralized government has often very little to do with quality of life or your buying power.
If you want to blame people for your life being less than desirable, point your finger at your local council, township or estate.
A lot of people in the western world lament the fact that "old Europe" or "Main Street, USA" or "Small Towns" type economies and attitudes have died off... but few if any people are actively trying to maintain that "lifestyle."
In fact, a lot of environmental issues are tied to that very idea.
I like to refer to that concept as "petit urbanism." Try buying a shop, make $40,000 dollars (USD) off of it. Then add the complication of financing a parking lot.
The mortgage on 12 parking spaces is about 600 dollars a month.
Orochi,
Local council has no power, neither has the government of my country, Ireland.
We are in the EU now, and all laws come from a central source.
The government have signed away all out rights over the past decades.
Copenhagen is going to be yet another infraction on our freedoms.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT IS A BEATING STICK.
Derek
agreed. i wouldn't be surprised if some day we look back on all of the environmentalists with as much sympathy as we now have for the nazis.
then again, the world is getting dumber everyday so...
zoo, limited freedom is when you aren't allowed to drive a car because of your gender or aren't allowed to publicly criticize someone who's oppressing you. As Orochi pointed out you may have limited buying power but that doesn't translate to limited freedom.
Isn't freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?
Perhaps carbon taxing is not a good idea, but carbon/emission cap trading is definitely a step in the right direction. With the current "western world" system, without DIRECT profit from being better for the environment, corporations will continue their dirty practices. This at least provides FINANCIAL incentive to perhaps think twice about what they're really doing.
So you may think climate change/global warming may not exist, or at least not caused by human influence. Still, I don't understand why that is always the key issue. Perhaps we've watched too many end-of-the-world scenarios that show loud and dramatic events like tsunamis, insane storms, etc. Not only is pollution and exploitation of natural resources slowly and quietly impacting human health and livelihood currently, its hurting biodiversity and ecosystems that in the long run will impact us in a bigger way. I think of it as an investment, although there may not be a return on the investment in our lifetime.
What has always interested me and something I think everyone can learn from, is how some indigenous people think of ownership and nature in general. Not only do they think it is ridiculous to "own" something that lasts longer than they do, but they think that they are "borrowing" the land (and nature in general) from future generations. This sense of ownership has allowed us to exploit it instead of caring for it like something we've borrowed.
Psychological warfare through economic means.
None of us will be able to afford* (read ALLOWED) to drive a car when all the carbon taxes are introduced, along with increased fuel prices, because we cannot afford to run a vehicle.
Limited buying power relates directly to limited freedom.
LB, its a race to the bottom at the minute, blacks, whites, whatever colour, gender etc, we all going under if the government get its way.
SAY NO TO CARBON TAXES. ANOTHER SCAM.
Another prominent global warming alarmist, Tim Flannery, now admits that there are holes in the “science is settled” mantra.
“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend,” said Flannery.
“And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?” asks Andrew Bolt.
ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE, PAY BILLIONS IN SHAM TAXES, AND LOSE WHATEVER JOBS ARE LEFT IN THE WESTERN WORLD?
THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.