So by now you know about “Climategate“, right? The THOUSANDS of emails showing deceit, cover-up, collusion, falsification of data, destruction of data – that sort of thing?
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wants to make sure we all know who the bad guys are. Wait for it…wait for it….they are the people who released the emails. Yup, the whistleblowers. “This is a crime”, she said, adding that any Senate investigation would include a criminal probe. “”You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate“.
So Senator Boxer doesn’t like whistleblowers, right? Wrong. She is quite proud of a 1988 measure that SHE SPONSORED to protect whistle-blowers. She also didn’t have a problem with leaked FCC reports showing The Federal Communications Commission ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage. Boxer asked whether any other commissioners “past or present” knew of the report’s existence and why it was never made public. She also asked whether it was “shelved because the outcome was not to the liking of some of the commissioners and/or any outside powerful interests?” She then said if she did not receive adequate answers as to why the report was not released sooner (leaked), she would push for an investigation. She also did not complain when Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked, when the NYT leaked info about bank account transfers of terrorists we were tracking or, or, or….
Oh hypocrisy, thy name is Boxer.
December 5, 2009 at 8:16 am
We have lost it! I’m looking for the report that says we have spent somewhere between 140-175 Trillion dollars on climate grants, research and other spending in the past 20 years.
Now, while most of your readers are informed this still hasn’t it mainstream media- the people don’t know!
December 5, 2009 at 8:52 am
First, nice effect on the snow thing (unless that’s my computer screen freaking out) and second, A nice sprig of holly would be a nice touch somewhere under the dome on your masthead.
On the blog: You seem surprised, Hollly, that the MSM hasn’t reported on the Global Warming lie. The honeymoon is over…but, the long term commitment to the bridegroom (not capitalized) lingers on…afterall, marriage is nothing to be taken lightly. They need eachother…like Hillary needs Bill, like Monica needs Bill, like a shark needs a remora, like puss needs an open sore…till death do they part.
December 5, 2009 at 8:58 am
The hackers pulled off a real coup releasing those emails on the eve of Copenhagen. The truth will come out in the end. The problem is that a lot of people want to believe in man-made global warming because they can stop thinking, end of discussion, the science is settled. However, a skeptic, by his or her very nature is open to new evidence and discussion.
In my experience I find the most closed-minded people are the AGW crowd. When approached they just won’t consider anything that might change their minds.
December 5, 2009 at 11:46 am
Anyone who does not accept the fact of global warming needs to read the official United States EPA statement.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
That a group of right wing ideologues who have politicized the issue do not accept the findings and conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community boggles the mind. If global warming is not taking place then someone needs to tell the glaciers that are melting at the fastest rate in tens of thousands of years.
December 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm
What Faux News calls “climategate” is just another made-up distraction. Forged e-mails are not the problem here. There are two dozen major climate research centers running twice as many general circulation models. The model results match the real world. The evidence is coming in the form of observations– not predictions. Global warming is happening now.
We finally have access to remote sensing images of melting sea ice that the Bush administration kept secret. Yet the denialist baloney factories are working overtime to convince people it’s not real.
December 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thousands of emails?
HA.
The problem you conservatives have on this issue — and always have had — is that you consistently undermine your own credibility by jumping the gun on non stories.
The “controversy” surrounds a scientist who “cooked the books” on producing a graph. The data manipulated and deleted was only his copy of the data. The original data still exists in the international pool. And the emails in question discuss “cooking the books” on tree ring data, something the scientific community at large understands is unreliable.
So a scientist fudges the numbers to make his presentation more impressive, and suddenly deniers have found their “smoking gun.”
It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so transparently desperate.
December 5, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Yep, thousands of emails. Please don’t tell me this blog is the first place you read that.
December 6, 2009 at 12:54 am
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
18% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats and 33% of Independents believe Global Warming is because of human activity. 36% overall. That is an 11% overall drop in 3 years.
Since the majority of the US no longer believes in this Global Warming religion, JBT is up in the night.
Some have been betting Trillions of dollars on global warming, I can see why they are ticked off.
December 6, 2009 at 12:59 am
utah_1 obviously didn’t get the memo. The debate is over. They have staked everything on this thing, so just shutup and get out of their way.
December 6, 2009 at 1:23 am
If the debate is over, why are we still arguing? Why are there still different opinions? And interpretations of the data? The biggest problem I see with the Global Warming/Climate Change disciples is the over zealous effort to force everyone to change their lifestyle to fit how they think the world should be. So they want to save the world by enslaving the population. Which leaves the problem solving in the hands of a few, which never leads to real, effective solutions. No more consensus. Either your in, or your forced to be in, or your in prison/fined/taxed/etc.
December 6, 2009 at 12:09 pm
From the link I provided:
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
If this information from the U.S. Government isn’t clear or accurate, let’s have our friends on the right who don’t accept the truth about global warming present their own set of facts. It is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll—it is science.
Encouraging everyone to conserve fossil fuels by driving more fuel efficient vehicles, weather proofing their homes, and using more public transportation is not “enslaving” the population. It is asking people to be considerate of others.
Asking people to recycle glass, plastics, and paper is not forcing them to change their lifestyle in a negative way. It is encouraging them to help conserve the worlds resources for their children and grand children.
For thousands of years humankind has raped the planet earth to meet our needs and wants. We have done so in ways that have done real harm to our natural resources because we didn’t know better or because making a larger profit took precedence. Now we DO know better and we have an opportunity to reverse the trend and begin to mitigate the harm we have done in order to protect future generations.
It is not an issue of politics or ideology, it is about trying to be less self centered as an individual and as a nation and caring more about one another instead of just ourselves.
December 6, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I see a lot of “facts” being quoted but no references. Anyone care to back up their claims?
December 7, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Greg,
Since you missed it the first time I posted it, here is the link I provided again.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Use this as a springboard to go to the links provided throughout the page to better your understanding of global climate change.
December 7, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Seriously? The same EPA that just declared carbon dioxide a dangerous gas so cap and trade can be shoved down our throats without a vote? Come on, John – the science is simply not there, no matter how much you stomp your foot.
December 8, 2009 at 12:02 am
JBT,
Thanks for attempting to back up your statements with more than rhetoric.
Unfortunately the site you reference is a political site far more than a scientific site. The EPA’s direction is set by the White House and is run by career bureaucrats. I refer you to the biography of current EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Note that she is a political appointee with a background including being Chief of Staff for New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.
http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/bio/
The EPA site provides conclusions but offers no scientific data to back up their claims.
Allow me to refer you to a scientific site that actually backs up their statements with actual data and analysis.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Please note the data that clearly contradicts the EPA positions you have posted:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
This statement is mostly correct, but misleading. It is understood and does not support the conclusions which follow it.
From the above listed link:
* The atmospheric build up of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
“Human production of 8 Gt C per year of CO2 is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C residing in the oceans and biosphere”
“The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62). ”
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The temperature has fluctuated and the trend from 1906 to 2005 is consistent with the changes for the last 2oo to 300 years – thus not caused by man’s energy use as claimed by the EPA.
“Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery from the Little Ice Age (13-17). This temperature change is slight as compared with other natural variations, as shown in Figure 6. Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of “global cooling” in the 1970s.”
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
“Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere. Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.”
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
Actually, the opposite seems to be true, a warming planet tends to increase greenhouse gas concentrations.
“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”
Spend some time reviewing this fact-based analysis with exhaustive references. It soon becomes obvious the the EPA position is little more than DNC talking points.
December 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.
A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.
Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.
But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.
The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.
All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.
It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.
Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.
December 14, 2009 at 11:05 am
@ hkyson:
Your analysis is good. But it assumes discounts the propensity of some scientists to a: selectively seek and accept data that supports their agenda, while ignoring or rejecting data that refutes their agenda, and b: fall in line with the findings of other scientists, especially when there is a large group of them bullying and using terminology like “virtual certainty”, “unequivocal”, etc…