• 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!

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

There is a book by an ex-minister of Energy in United Kingdom that exposes the global warming troubles with reality. In each of his counter-arguments, he takes the maximum bad effect that global warming claims will happen in the next 100 years and shows that the economic and personal cost of those worst claims are less than the cost of making the changes to eliminate or avoid those claims. His essential argument is that even if the worst possible estimates of the global warming theorists come to pass, the cost is less to society as a whole than taking the drastic steps that they claim must be taken in order to avoid it.

An appeal to reason : a cool look at global warming / Nigel Lawson.
 
I was at the grocery store and it hit me: there's more proof that we were lied to about global warming than there is proof that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq...:rofl
 
one of the stolen emails says a climate scientist did not get money from either side on the global warming debate.
 
from the stolen emails

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the
official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility
that
today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least
partly caused by the
Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While
the
evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature
continues
to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.

Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the
Meteorological
Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on
the
IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the
significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not
unusual
relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global
phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of
temperature
proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent
warming
of the last 50 years," he said.
 
hazlnut said:
For anyone interested in getting better informed about how the Far-Right is desperately trying to spin a non-story...

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For anyone really interested in the facts of the criminal case--here they are:





Go Jim Inhofe, keep shilling for energy corps. Your kids must be so proud...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is your refutation? And a hit on Inhofe for taking "money from energy corporations?"

I guess you also protest Algore pushing AGW and oh.. also being poised to make hundreds of millions off the regulations of Cap and Trade and the like. After all, isn't that what your upset about with Inhofe? That he stands to "gain" from his position monetarily?
 
only 5% of climate scientists agree with inhofe.
 
MrVicchio said:
Wikipedia is your refutation? And a hit on Inhofe for taking "money from energy corporations?"

I guess you also protest Algore pushing AGW and oh.. also being poised to make hundreds of millions off the regulations of Cap and Trade and the like. After all, isn't that what your upset about with Inhofe? That he stands to "gain" from his position monetarily?
Click to expand...

al gore gains from cap and trade financially? link?
 
scottsoperson said:
al gore gains from cap and trade financially? link?
Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY?

You need a link for that?

No, I'm not talking about a horror movie, but there is a link to the cinema. Around the time Al Gore was putting together that movie about the horrors of global warming titled "An Inconvenient Truth," he was also putting together a firm with a former Goldman-Sachs executive named David Blood. The firm, Generation Investment Management, recently bought a share of a company called Camco International Ltd., which trades in carbon credits.
So if the U.S. Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill and President Obama signs it, Blood and Gore stand to make out just fine on their investments. The market in carbon credits is a very lucrative one.
Click to expand...
Cap-and-trade bill: Blood and Gore | Paul Mulshine - NJ.com

That was from a 2 second google, you are free to find more of your own. Gore has a firm that deals in CARBON CREDITS. FFS, are you saying you didn't know that Mr. Al"Global Warming"Gore, while pushing legislation to "save the environment" and making scary movies is also selling carbon credits?
:rofl
 
[QUOTThus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.[/QUOTE]
Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com
 
Fortune Magazine -- Four years ago David Blood retired as CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Having seen extreme poverty as a child in Brazil, where his father was an auto executive, Blood was looking for a second act that was about more than making money. He and Al Gore started Generation Investment Management with a lofty goal; "To encourage businesses around the world to be more responsible, ethical, and sustainable."

how specifically would this company make a buck off cap and trade?
 
so gore is trying to use capitalism to help fight global warming. boy, that is a really evil goal of his.
 
well, if you invest in companies that are green that would benefit you with cap and trade. horrible! horrible! gore should be arrested.
 
i guess it's like cheney and halliburton benefitting off of the iraq lie/war.

except global warming is not a lie according to the vast majority of climate scientists.
 
liblady said:
first, let me say that any scientist who has purposely misrepresented data should not be allowed to continue.

now, let me say that it's patently untrue that environmental groups do nothing. recycling is sensible, greater mpg is sensible, and overall reduction of energy consumption is sensible, reasonable and logical. these were the first approaches taken by those groups.

let me ask you a question: why would you want to see the demise of groups who could come up with, sensible, logical and reasonable plans?
Click to expand...
And guess what? You won't find conservative groups fighting you about better gas mileage and recycling as long as it doesn't unnecessarily harm people economically. Managing the cutting of tree, sensibly, is okay. Allowing forest fires because you don't want thinning of forests or cutting fire breaks, is irresponsible.
 
scottsoperson said:
i guess it's like cheney and halliburton benefitting off of the iraq lie/war.

except global warming is not a lie according to the vast majority of climate scientists.
Click to expand...
Yeah, any wonder?
 
Ziggae_6 said:
I read your Penn State article that was taken from the Penn State student newspaper (not researched by US News & World Report by the way). I am not really sure how this line

indicates that the theory of global warming is definitely proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...

The thousands of emails, computer code, and temperature data released from CRU don't "prove" that global warming is wrong. What they do is show that the leading scientists promoting AGW have falsified data, hidden data from other scientists wishing to replicate their claims, conspired to ignore FOI requests, destroyed the peer review process, kept papers and findings critical of AGW out of scientific journals, and vowed to each other that information critical of AGW would not be included in IPCC reports.

Or this one:

Couldn't someone say that you are kinda exaggerating a little yourself at this point? I'd rather someone independent have made these comments.
Click to expand...

Many independent people have commented on it. Where have you been??

Having "climate change opponents" make claims that two researchers falsified info really doesn't tell me much. Little more details before we jump to conclusions, thus looking as guilty as the ones you accuse of being wrong.
Click to expand...

A. It's far more than two scientists.
B. Read the emails and data yourself.

But I can give another chance to prove it. The Breibart article mentions e-mail between "leading US researchers" of global climate change. Do me a favor and list these people so we'll recognize their names when they get investigated, OK?
Click to expand...

You've already mentioned the main one yourself, Michael Mann.

Others include Gavin Schmidt at NASA, Kevin Trenbeth and Colorado State, Tom Wigley of UCAR, Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore, etc. Should I go on or is this enough for now???
 
Considering the trillions of dollars at stake, AGW needs a lot more research before it's validity can be on a par with the theory of relativity. The perpetrators of the falsified data should be prosecuted for fraud. Their grants depended on governments believing in AGW, and by premeditated lying, their crime is no different than Bernie Madoff's.
 
Rebel said:
Considering the trillions of dollars at stake, AGW needs a lot more research before it's validity can be on a par with the theory of relativity. The perpetrators of the falsified data should be prosecuted for fraud. Their grants depended on governments believing in AGW, and by premeditated lying, their crime is no different than Bernie Madoff's.
Click to expand...

The real crime here is we no longer have the data or the trust in the scientists and science that gave us the global warming theory. It may be true, but now we can't reasonably ascertain that because of both the antics of the scientists in question or the politicians who need it to empower themselves.
 
Gill said:
The thousands of emails, computer code, and temperature data released from CRU don't "prove" that global warming is wrong. What they do is show that the leading scientists promoting AGW have falsified data, hidden data from other scientists wishing to replicate their claims, conspired to ignore FOI requests, destroyed the peer review process, kept papers and findings critical of AGW out of scientific journals, and vowed to each other that information critical of AGW would not be included in IPCC reports.

and your source of this is?

Many independent people have commented on it. Where have you been??

Not in the articles you have posted. They are quoting the anti-warming people as the source. Circular logic, I think they call that.



A. It's far more than two scientists.
B. Read the emails and data yourself.



You've already mentioned the main one yourself, Michael Mann.

Others include Gavin Schmidt at NASA, Kevin Trenbeth and Colorado State, Tom Wigley of UCAR, Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore, etc. Should I go on or is this enough for now???
Click to expand...

Why aren't any of these people mentioned in the articles you have posted? I'm sure you have read all of the e-mails yourself since you made the initial claim, right?
 
Ziggae_6 said:
Why aren't any of these people mentioned in the articles you have posted? I'm sure you have read all of the e-mails yourself since you made the initial claim, right?
Click to expand...
Gill reading or not reading all the emails has no effect on the validity of the charges against the scientists. But good luck with that.
 
scottsoperson said:
i guess it's like cheney and halliburton benefitting off of the iraq lie/war.

except global warming is not a lie according to the vast majority of climate scientists.
Click to expand...

Got any evidence supporting your claim that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq? We have plenty of evidence to support the claim that scientists have been lieing about global warming...:rofl
 
liblady said:
recycling is sensible,
Click to expand...

Not really. Paper, plastic, and glass are actually cheaper to get from the earth still. Recycling these things is actually a waste of resources. And no, we are not running out of landfill space.

greater mpg is sensible,
Click to expand...

Sure, and if you live near a freeway and don't like the pollution, then sue the government (which would then force only certain cars that pollute a certain amount be allowed on the freeway or else pay a higher price). Oh wait. There are no direct controls on auto pollution like this, which would actually be great.

and overall reduction of energy consumption is sensible,
Click to expand...

Except that government won't set energy prices to market levels. I remember those rolling blackouts in California.

reasonable and logical.
Click to expand...

If you ignore basic economics and think that government is a panacea for society's ills.

these were the first approaches taken by those groups.
Click to expand...

Yet the free market would do all of these things and do them better.
 
STATS:

only 5% of climate scientists agree with the radical repubs on global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom