The real climate change catastrophe

[kai]

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages



The real climate change catastrophe - Telegraph

 

[Falvlun]

I wonder how the author accounts for the fact that the majority of scientists agree that global warming is occuring, and that humans are partly to blame.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Are all these scientists a part of the conspiracy? And if so, then what is the purpose of this conspiracy?

Lastly, even if global warming turns out to be a hoax, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be more conscientious about how we treat our environment. We have the technology; we just need to commit to it. Why do we need a disaster to occur before we change our destructive habits?

 

[Neo-Logic]

I wonder how the author accounts for the fact that the majority of scientists agree that global warming is occuring, and that humans are partly to blame.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Are all these scientists a part of the conspiracy? And if so, then what is the purpose of this conspiracy?

Lastly, even if global warming turns out to be a hoax, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be more conscientious about how we treat our environment. We have the technology; we just need to commit to it. Why do we need a disaster to occur before we change our destructive habits?

Falvan,

I wonder what the recently hacked files - 20 years worth of e-mail exchanges and other data - of University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report), will reveal.

While the files spread worldwide, the not so credible and biased sites already claim the e-mails contain conversations that shows blatant cooking or skewing of data to support the conclusion - otherwise known as a tautology, or a tautological finding.

I'm looking forward to the reporting of it from more credible news sources. But the short answer to your question of what is there to be gained: power, fame, and funding.

BBC News - Hackers target leading climate research unit

Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU | Grist

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Before It's News :: Climategate Fallout: Interview with Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU Emails

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I wonder how the author accounts for the fact that the majority of scientists agree that global warming is occuring, and that humans are partly to blame.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Are all these scientists a part of the conspiracy? And if so, then what is the purpose of this conspiracy?

Lastly, even if global warming turns out to be a hoax, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be more conscientious about how we treat our environment. We have the technology; we just need to commit to it. Why do we need a disaster to occur before we change our destructive habits?

First question: Of all the oranizations listed, do you personally know anything about them or how they came to their conclusions?

Next, if global warming is a hoax, why spend so much effort, restrictriction and capital to reduce something that will have no effect on global temperature? Wouldn't it be more prudent to be sure first?

 

[Baydwin]

Even if global warming is a hoax as you suggest, the acidification of the oceans is not and that alone is a reason to cut CO2 emissions to zero as quickly as feasible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Even if global warming is a hoax as you suggest, the acidification of the oceans is not and that alone is a reason to cut CO2 emissions to zero as quickly as feasible.

I'll ask you the same question, out of curiosity, what do you know about the actual studies of ocean acidity?

 

[Baydwin]

I'll ask you the same question, out of curiosity, what do you know about the actual studies of ocean acidity?

Only what I've read in the news, and the annihilation of pH sensitive coral reefs.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Only what I've read in the news, and the annihilation of pH sensitive coral reefs.

I take that as a no. Do you assume it to be true then?

 

[Baydwin]

I take that as a no. Do you assume it to be true then?

Yes, it is true. Ocean acidification can be seen happening now, with its effects on coral reefs visible. It's not like climate change which relies on future predictions.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, it is true. Ocean acidification can be seen happening now, with its effects on coral reefs visible. It's not like climate change which relies on future predictions.

And you rely on this being true how?

 

[Baydwin]

And you rely on this being true how?

I suppose I rely on the media reporting it correctly to me, if that's what you mean.
I also rely on common sense, we know CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, we know CO2 gets dissolved in sea water, and we know that dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid. 1 + 2 + 3 = dead coral.

 

[Copernicus]

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ageshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

Consider the source. Christopher Booker is well known for his pseudoscientific sensationalist rants in the Telegraph. The only thing that makes his new book "startling" is that there are still so many gullible people who would rather take him seriously than the scientific consensus.

 

[Alceste]

I find it astounding that anyone still doubts that climate change is happening, and even more astounding that they come out of the woodwork to gloat and cheer every time some unqualified hack publishes another unscientific piece of trash claiming the rest of us have been had.

 

[Falvlun]

Falvan,

I wonder what the recently hacked files - 20 years worth of e-mail exchanges and other data - of University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report), will reveal.

While the files spread worldwide, the not so credible and biased sites already claim the e-mails contain conversations that shows blatant cooking or skewing of data to support the conclusion - otherwise known as a tautology, or a tautological finding.

To be frank, I think these emails to be incredibly damaging to global warming, and to science in general. I haven't heard about any tampered data, or falsified results, but it's looking like there was squashing of dissenting view-points through the peer-review process. You tamper with peer-review and you screw up science's check and balance. Even if the emails turn out only to be about personal animosity, rather than a professional blocking, what the general public will remember is "Global warming is a hoax and you can't trust science."

I will be interested in finding out exactly what the emails say, and what research, if any, is made void. Afterall, if all they were doing was blocking certain research from being published, then publishing that research should right the wrong. There is still a large volume of research supporting human-aided global warming, and it is only nullified if the results were skewed.

I'm looking forward to the reporting of it from more credible news sources. But the short answer to your question of what is there to be gained: power, fame, and funding.

Why would a scientist desire funding for a project s/he knows to be built upon a false premise? This claim would only make sense if they were then using that funding for some other project. Otherwise, they are making a false claim in order to obtain funding to generate false research to support that false claim. It doesn't make sense.

I would think the majority of scientists would prefer to gain their fame and power through an actual discovery, rather than the fabrication of one. The idea that thousands of scientists are willing to risk their reputation on something they know to be false is a pretty preposterous claim. I do not deny that there are a few out there willing to do so, but you are talking about a mass conspiracy that nearly everyone involved in climate research would have to be in on.

 

[Falvlun]

First question: Of all the oranizations listed, do you personally know anything about them or how they came to their conclusions?

I assume they came to their conclusions by the scientific method of hypothesis, repeatable experimentation, and publishing by peer-review. This is how I trust any other scientific research, like how a new drug works, or the best wing shape of airplanes, etc.

Next, if global warming is a hoax, why spend so much effort, restrictriction and capital to reduce something that will have no effect on global temperature? Wouldn't it be more prudent to be sure first?

I absolutely do not understand this viewpoint. Just because our actions may not cause an immediate, disasterous outcome, does not give us free-reign to treat our planet like crap. It also does not mean that our actions are not harming our environment in other more subtle ways.

Really, is it prudent to wait until your house is on fire to buy smoke alarms?

How much will the money you saved be worth, if you destroy your planet in the process?

 

[kai]

Climate changes all the time , its well documented the OP is about over egging the pudding. Ok its time to take a look at what we are doing but lets have a reasonable assessment. is this "science" vulnerable to vested interests? The government loves scare tactics it helps raise revenue.


It just seems to me its all about TAX in my country anyway.

Climate change scandal: BBC expert was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they were made public | Mail Online


Climate change email claims ‘rubbish’ - Channel 4 News


Ha s anyone noticed how climate change or man's role in it, has become kind of religious with righteous believers and non believers .

 

[kai]

The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN'T tell you about climate change

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231694/The-inconvenient-truths-Mr-Gore-fanatical-friends-DIDNT-tell-climate-change.html#ixzz0YEzBrgIi



Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html#ixzz0YF1BSMHb

 

[Alceste]

For god's sake, kai, the daily mail? You HAVE to be kidding me.

 

[Thief]

I've seen more than one documentary on this topic...quite a few actually.

The one outstanding work of evidence (and you don't see it often), is the collection of satellite infra red photos.

As soon as we were able to, we have been studying this Earth in every way we can. And the temperature changes are seen best in infra red.

From the time satellites began doing so, until this present day, the temperature, has risen no less than an average of 6 degrees.
Doesn't sound like a lot, but when the glaciers covered New York, 10thousand years ago, the average temp was seven degrees less than 1950.

But I suppose this type of debate will bounce back and forth, as some people contend that a sudden rise in average temp, is not unusual.

Even so, 30years of high temp can produce enough change to alter life and living for several generations.
When temperature spikes, it takes awhile for the effect to dissipate.
The Earth is not like a pot of water, once it begins to boil, can be turned down to simmer, whenever you feel like it.