• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inquiry Into Stolen Climate E-Mails

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC News - Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails

Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.

Announcement of a chair of the inquiry and terms of reference will probably be made on Monday, a source says.

The University of East Anglia's (UEA) press office did not confirm the date.

But a spokesperson said information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon.

Scientists will be scrutinising the choice of chair and the terms of reference.

One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.

BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name.

But there is a risk that some people will not accept the findings of any inquiry unless it is fully independent, as demanded by the former UK Chancellor Lord Lawson earlier in the week.

A petition is running on the 10 Downing Street website calling for CRU to be suspended from preparation of any government climate statistics until the allegations have been fully investigated.

Professor Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, told BBC News there are three key issues:

how did the leakage occur - was there any payment in the process?

the alleged behaviour of the scientists indicated by the e-mails

does this have any impact on the scientific conclusion?

If an independent inquiry encompassed all three aspects, Professor Sir David said he would support it.

Some observations:

1. Anyone who ever believed that any professional association of ACADEMICS---devoted blood, sweat and tears to a POLITICAL cause---would act and behave as SCIENTISTS instead of HACKS elicits a lusty LOL! from The pleasure loving Prof.

2. Thus Oblivious Obama crawls to Copenhagen beneath a hurricane of swirling headlines all aghast and agust over the bogused-up trigonometry employed by the warming watchdogs at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.

3. For one day---Obtuse Obama will spend just one day in the city of Hans Christian Andersen.

4. Remember what happened last time he visited the mermaid.

5. Oprah went with him.

6. Over-his-head Obama will pledge there to cut US emissions by EIGHTY THREE % by 2050.

7. He might as well promise to rain lemonade.

8. Climate accords are kaput says APEC.

9. So does Time.

World Leaders Put Off a Climate Change Treaty - COP15: Climate-Change Conference - TIME

10. Indeed, Chairman Hu slapped down the proposal over capers at Singapore when he pointedly explained Peking's position on the topic---climate control, according to the Chinese, means that "wealthy," developed nations must subsidize the cleaner, greener growth of third world economies.

11. Meanwhile, cap and trade is dead in the US Senate---ask Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan, Lincoln, Byrd, Sharrod Brown, Jay Rockefeller...

12. The CRU of the AEA has really put Downing Street in a dilemna.

13. Trapped as well is our inept president.

14. So he escapes to Copenhagen to spout pretty poetry that bears no relation to reality.

15. The incredibly shrinking charlatan diminishes.


The Prof
 
I have a degree in Physics and I have had trouble all along with the climate change people based PURELY on a scientific basis. The degree flunctuations that they have claimed over the past 100 years are dependent on tenths and hundredths of a degree - something that the measuring devices from 100 years ago could not measure very precisely.

Also, I have looked and looked but found no scientific basis for CO2 to be a 'greenhouse' gas other than Venus has a large concentration of CO2 and Methane in its atmosphere and is much hotter than the Earth. It is also much closer to the Sun and receives a nice multiple (I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head but recall it being 10 or more times as much) of more solar radiation than Earth does.

Unfortunately, it is a religion now that we have to cut emissions in order to 'save the planet'. This cult is very strong in the political elite and taken very seriously in the Western World so we probably will see some more attempts to cut them through the force of government regulations and laws.
 
Also, I have looked and looked but found no scientific basis for CO2 to be a 'greenhouse' gas other than Venus has a large concentration of CO2 and Methane in its atmosphere and is much hotter than the Earth.

You must not have looked very hard.

Definition of greenhouse gas

Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range.

C02 Absorbtion Spectrum
spectra.png
 
I'm terribly sorry for introducing data into this thread :roll:
 
I'm terribly sorry for introducing data into this thread :roll:

Indeed, data is a challenge for some folks because they have to read it. :doh

C02 is very much a greenhouse gas. Without C02 turning into 03 (absorbing direct sunlight), we would all burn up. Thus C02 -> 03 = good!

However, with too much 03, not enough of the suns' reflections escape back out or so goes the theory.
 
But as I read the graph, then O2+O3 and H2O are also greenhouse gasses because they both absorb and emit radiation in the infrared range. Some more so than CO2.

Energy absorption and emision are methods of storing energy. When the energy is incoming from the sun, it is absorbed by the various atmospheric and ground components (along with some plant and animal matter). At night there is a lack of incoming energy so we have more emisions than absorptions. That is a normal and natural mechanic.

Atmospheric absorption is the real key here, because it absorbs the energy before it reaches the ground and 'heats' the atmsophere. However the amount of energy that reaches and is absorbed at ground level is what warms the world, gasses do not absorb and hold the heat like solids do (go out and stand on some black top in the early dusk after a sunny day for a good illustration of this principle). But CO2 is the primary key to cloud formation. The clouds (being white) reflect the entire spectrum of visible light and a majority of the infra-red back into space. This reduces the amount of energy that reaches the ground.

The warming of the oceans is the basis of global warming theory. So the energy from the sun must reach the water (which has a better heat absorption capability of anything else on the surface of the world) in order to truly add to the heat of the world. If atmospheric CO2 is helping form clouds which bounce the radiation back into space, then how is it helping warm the world?

The key to ALL of this is that the energy radiating from the sun is the source of the energy passing through the atmosphere and warming the world. The global warming theory assumes that this radiation is a constant. It is not. The sun goes through a solar cycle with a period of 11 years with a greater cycle of 66 years. So whenever you take a 100 year sample of data on the world, you have to be careful when you choose your start and end points or you find yourself (as the global warming folks did) with the starting point at the low point in the cycle comparing to the high point of another cycle. Thus you are comparing the two extremes - 100 years ago it was the coldest while 1998 was close to the peak of the warmest.

So now go back and compare world temperatures through various means to today's temperatures. An interesting fact emerges, the world has a lack of ice caps for over 50% of its existence and the average world temperature is lower now than the historical average by about 5 degrees C.

In the 1300s the world went through a mini-ice age for about 150 years. We don't know why, but the solar radiation was drastically reduced and growing seasons in France were reduced to as few as six weeks for several years in a row. The average world temperature has yet to reach the pre-mini ice age average.

So I still say that the nomination of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is nebulous at best since water vapor is actually better at absorbing and emitting in the infra-red range as shown by your graph, but we are not working at removing it from the atmosphere.
 
I'm terribly sorry for introducing data into this thread :roll:

The question is..... where did that data come from? From the criminals that have been massaging the data for 30 years? From the criminals that have been covering up any data that doesn't fit their political agenda?

Is that the data you are introducing? If not, how do you know?

BTW……
ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2009) — The leaves of soybeans grown at the elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels predicted for the year 2050 respire more than those grown under current atmospheric conditions, researchers report, a finding that will help fine-tune climate models and could point to increased crop yields as CO2 levels rise.

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops

Seems like it is a self regulating system.... the more CO2, the more plant growth. The more plant growth, the more CO2 used. Maybe you GW disciples need to find a different boogieman.... like maybe oxygen.

There you go.... decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, maybe even to 0% and we won't have to worry about Global Warming.....errrrr...... Climate change......errrrrrrr..... the next Ice age at all!!!! :doh
 
So now that Global Warming is officially a faith-based religion, can Al Gore file his billions under "non-profit organization" with the IRS?
 
Poor American. Graphs are smarter than him.

Poor Redress........ left with nothing to say, she makes personal attacks to hide the exposed fallacy of her beliefs.

How can you with any honesty point to any information put out by the criminals that have been distorting data for 30 years to further their political agenda?

Global Warming.......... errrrrrrrr....... Climate Change was brought to you by the same frauds that brought you Global Cooling back in the 70's. They are nothing more than political whores that use twisted junk science to line their pockets and fleece the masses with scare tactics and any made up crisis.

You've been duped. Admit it, learn from it, and move on.
 
Last edited:
Poor Redress........ left with nothing to say, she makes personal attacks to hide the exposed fallacy of her beliefs.

How can you with any honesty point to any information put out by the criminals that have been distorting data for 30 years to further their political agenda?

Global Warming.......... errrrrrrrr....... Climate Change was brought to you by the same frauds that brought you Global Cooling back in the 70's. They are nothing more than political whores that use twisted junk science to line their pockets and fleece the masses with scare tactics and any made up crisis.

You've been duped. Admit it, learn from it, and move on.

Poor Crunch...even the simplest of jokes goes over his head.
 
One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.

Oh?

It takes a dedicated True Believer to chair an investigation into the validity of the e-mails exposed?

No, it does not.

It takes a dedicated True Believer to arrange matters so the hoax can be re-buried and presented again as the True Path of Beauty and Never Ending Grants.
 
I have a degree in Physics and I have had trouble all along with the climate change people based PURELY on a scientific basis. The degree flunctuations that they have claimed over the past 100 years are dependent on tenths and hundredths of a degree - something that the measuring devices from 100 years ago could not measure very precisely.

Also, I have looked and looked but found no scientific basis for CO2 to be a 'greenhouse' gas other than Venus has a large concentration of CO2 and Methane in its atmosphere and is much hotter than the Earth. It is also much closer to the Sun and receives a nice multiple (I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head but recall it being 10 or more times as much) of more solar radiation than Earth does.

Ummm....most people that have degrees in physics don't find the application of the Inverse Square Law all that difficult.

Earth's orbital semi-major axis: 1 AU
Venus' orbital semi-major axis: 0.793 AU

Venerian insolation = (1/0.793)^2 Earth's = 159%

Not even twice.

You, the one claiming the physics degree, said "ten"?
 
Originally Posted by Redress
Poor American. Graphs are smarter than him.

Poor Crunch...even the simplest of jokes goes over his head.

Oh, I'm very good at recognizing jokes.... when did you make one? Certainly you are not speaking of that personal attack on American.
 
Last edited:
So.....when do you delete it and ask us to simply trust you? :mrgreen:

The raw data is probably already gone. The absorbance spectrum of C02 isn't something that is under debate, so once the paper describing it was published they likely didn't retain the data for long.

Absorbance spectrum is simple chemistry, though. You could probably redo that calculation in your average high school lab

The question is..... where did that data come from? From the criminals that have been massaging the data for 30 years? From the criminals that have been covering up any data that doesn't fit their political agenda?

Is that the data you are introducing? If not, how do you know?

Absorbance is simple chemistry. I seriously doubt that it was measured by climate scientists

BTW……

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops

Seems like it is a self regulating system.... the more CO2, the more plant growth. The more plant growth, the more CO2 used. Maybe you GW disciples need to find a different boogieman.... like maybe oxygen.

There you go.... decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, maybe even to 0% and we won't have to worry about Global Warming.....errrrr...... Climate change......errrrrrrr..... the next Ice age at all!!!! :doh

There are many feedback mechanisms in climate, both positive and negative. The largest carbon sink in the plant world are trees, and unforunately deforestation is reducing the amount of C02 that nature can absorb at the same time that emissions are increasing
 
Ummm....most people that have degrees in physics don't find the application of the Inverse Square Law all that difficult.

Earth's orbital semi-major axis: 1 AU
Venus' orbital semi-major axis: 0.793 AU

Venerian insolation = (1/0.793)^2 Earth's = 159%

Not even twice.

You, the one claiming the physics degree, said "ten"?

Yep, BS Physics December 1980 - never did anything more in Physics since. So yep, I blew that one :3oops: - too long away from the non-engineering applications - and yes I know that the inverse square law is in engineering - but I have been doing SPC calculations for the past 20 some years.
 
Back
Top Bottom