[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

NPR has some great concerts for free - miamizsun - Nov 22, 2019 - 2:16pm
 
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc) - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 22, 2019 - 2:09pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - seatrey - Nov 22, 2019 - 2:04pm
 
Impeachment Time: - rgio - Nov 22, 2019 - 2:01pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - miamizsun - Nov 22, 2019 - 1:52pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 22, 2019 - 1:17pm
 
Business as Usual - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 22, 2019 - 1:11pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 22, 2019 - 1:00pm
 
The Obituary Page - SeriousLee - Nov 22, 2019 - 12:55pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Nov 22, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Economix - westslope - Nov 22, 2019 - 12:00pm
 
A Friday Diversion - SeriousLee - Nov 22, 2019 - 11:59am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - SeriousLee - Nov 22, 2019 - 11:58am
 
You might be getting old if...... - SeriousLee - Nov 22, 2019 - 11:46am
 
RP Widget missing Android - Burkhardi - Nov 22, 2019 - 11:19am
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Nov 22, 2019 - 9:27am
 
RP App for Android - vsgpt - Nov 22, 2019 - 7:18am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - ColdMiser - Nov 22, 2019 - 6:50am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Nov 22, 2019 - 6:48am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 22, 2019 - 6:46am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - victory806 - Nov 22, 2019 - 6:42am
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - miamizsun - Nov 22, 2019 - 6:09am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - miamizsun - Nov 22, 2019 - 4:14am
 
Native macOS app with channels is available (Catalina-only) - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2019 - 9:41pm
 
Best Song Comments. - Steely_D - Nov 21, 2019 - 8:30pm
 
Things that piss me off - BlueHeronDruid - Nov 21, 2019 - 5:52pm
 
Least Effective Pick Up Lines For Men - Manbird - Nov 21, 2019 - 3:50pm
 
Long lost - haresfur - Nov 21, 2019 - 12:58pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Nov 21, 2019 - 12:08pm
 
Israel - R_P - Nov 21, 2019 - 11:28am
 
What does Bill say/mean? - oldviolin - Nov 21, 2019 - 11:19am
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - sunybuny - Nov 21, 2019 - 5:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Nov 21, 2019 - 5:14am
 
Why don't you do a patreon account to support you ? - Lanzarote_O - Nov 21, 2019 - 4:49am
 
Pie? Bah. Cake? Feh. Pudding? - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2019 - 8:58pm
 
I want an iPhone!!! - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2019 - 8:22pm
 
TV shows you watch - kcar - Nov 20, 2019 - 5:28pm
 
Apple TV - Manbird - Nov 20, 2019 - 4:24pm
 
Phillip K. DIck - Manbird - Nov 20, 2019 - 3:52pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - sunybuny - Nov 20, 2019 - 12:06pm
 
Fire - Proclivities - Nov 20, 2019 - 11:09am
 
New Music - sirdroseph - Nov 20, 2019 - 7:47am
 
Animation - Proclivities - Nov 20, 2019 - 7:22am
 
Regarding dogs - sirdroseph - Nov 20, 2019 - 6:39am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Red_Dragon - Nov 20, 2019 - 6:01am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2019 - 4:47am
 
Work - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2019 - 4:42am
 
http://stream.radioparadise.com/aac-320 stream cutting out - kbs - Nov 20, 2019 - 2:48am
 
France - SamWanderer - Nov 19, 2019 - 7:57pm
 
Advertising Gone Mad - kcar - Nov 19, 2019 - 4:01pm
 
Job Postings (Keep it real) - haresfur - Nov 19, 2019 - 2:21pm
 
The War on Happiness - Isabeau - Nov 19, 2019 - 1:06pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Nov 19, 2019 - 12:35pm
 
Name My Band - Proclivities - Nov 19, 2019 - 11:02am
 
Removing rated songs - Cache personalization - BillG - Nov 19, 2019 - 10:23am
 
Live Music - sirdroseph - Nov 19, 2019 - 10:19am
 
Documentaries - sirdroseph - Nov 19, 2019 - 6:42am
 
Auto refresh using Microsoft Edge - Proclivities - Nov 19, 2019 - 6:36am
 
MacOS app - gtufano - Nov 19, 2019 - 1:39am
 
Alexa for Germany - Bibaboffel - Nov 18, 2019 - 9:43pm
 
Trump Lies - buddy - Nov 18, 2019 - 8:31pm
 
Thorium Power - miamizsun - Nov 18, 2019 - 3:14pm
 
Bolivia - R_P - Nov 18, 2019 - 2:58pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Nov 18, 2019 - 12:39pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Nov 18, 2019 - 12:23pm
 
Movie Recommendation - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 18, 2019 - 11:59am
 
NETFLIX - Steely_D - Nov 18, 2019 - 11:46am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 18, 2019 - 10:01am
 
The Groovy Mix - MoonDweazel - Nov 18, 2019 - 9:25am
 
The Last Shadow Puppets - Proclivities - Nov 18, 2019 - 6:43am
 
Need a Cell Phone Geek - Jonathon - Nov 18, 2019 - 5:37am
 
How much is your monthly cellphone bill? - Manbird - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:37pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Nov 17, 2019 - 9:49am
 
Anti-War - westslope - Nov 17, 2019 - 9:13am
 
Bad Restaurant Promos - Proclivities - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:14am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 85, 86, 87 ... 93, 94, 95  Next
Post to this Topic
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:20am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Just shows how polarized America has become.

One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . .  I'm baffled by that.  And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance.  It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and  greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety.  Sad, really.  

Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process.

This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.
 

What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program?  I have not heard of a specific plan.  

I do not hear a debate about what should be done.  As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.  
BasmntMadman

BasmntMadman Avatar

Location: Off-White Gardens


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:20am

 islander wrote:

Yes argumentative. That is what you do here. You would take a contrary position to just about anything on the other side of your agenda/ideology and prepare a 27 post dissertation w/ the graphs, supporting blogs, commentary, 4 part harmony, and a reserve of any likely opponents posting history to throw back at them on a moments notice. Hyper-partisan hackery is your tagline.
 
Uh-oh.  He's got records on you, pal.  Expect some....Links!!...gasp....

first smartass who posts a pic of sausages gets a wedgie, or deserves one, anyway

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:18am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Just shows how polarized America has become.

One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . .  I'm baffled by that.  And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance.  It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and  greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety.  Sad, really.  

Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process.


 
{#Clap}

 

This Every issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.
Typo/fixed.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 steeler wrote:
Just shows how polarized America has become.

One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . .  I'm baffled by that.  And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance.  It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and  greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety.  Sad, really.  

Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process.

This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.
 

Why can't I say it like that? I must be lost in my own BS or something. I've tried to say this very thing, only to fall between the cracks in my
philosophy...


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:17am

 islander wrote:

Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.

My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided.  I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.

Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
 

The oil example is a good one.  We should be able to agree that oil is a finite resource that has been seriously depleted, and that there is a need to develop alternative energy sources.  Yet, we do not agree on that. Instead, we get sidetracked into convoluted, labyrinthinian arguments about who is trying to manipulate whom and for what reasons (usually unspecified).  Once the discussions focus more on motivations than upon substances, the rabbit hole opens ever wider, eventually swallowing reason.

I think you frame this issue fairly well.  I would frame it as follows:  We agree there is climate change, but we disagree as to its causes. Primarily, this boils down to those who say that climate change occurs naturally and inevitably, so we should not do anything to interefere. In sum: don't worry about it. On the other side are those who believe that the writing is on the wall, and that human consumption has contributed immensely to the current state. 

I say, even if human consumption has not knocked the whole natural order of things out of whack, we still have to know that something is happening that can be and likely will be threatening to human and animal life.  Yesterday I cited the Ice Age as an example of something that occurred and wiped out species.  The earth survived, sure, but a lot of species did not. That, alone, seems to me to provide ample reason for concern.  So, why we should be looking for answers, we're bogged down on whether there, in fact, is a problem.  Wonder if the dinosaurs had the same conversations?                    


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:14am

 Beaker wrote:

Argumentative?  Excuse me.  I'm merely responding to Dio's alarmist drama of implicating skeptics of global warming as being directly equatable with the now well known lies of tobacco companies.  Dishonest discussion such at that of Dio deserves to be called out for what it is: hyper-partisan hackery.
 
Yes argumentative. That is what you do here. You would take a contrary position to just about anything on the other side of your agenda/ideology and prepare a 27 post dissertation w/ the graphs, supporting blogs, commentary, 4 part harmony, and a reserve of any likely opponents posting history to throw back at them on a moments notice. Hyper-partisan hackery is your tagline.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:13am

Climate denialism links to tobacco denialism: George Monbiot, from The Guardian (UK).


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:12am

 steeler wrote:
Just shows how polarized America has become.

One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . .  I'm baffled by that.  And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance.  It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and  greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety.  Sad, really.  

Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process.

This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:11am

 hobiejoe wrote:

Will you marry me?  love MrsHJ.
 
The day Mrs.Islander tires of me.

hobiejoe

hobiejoe Avatar

Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light.
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:09am

 islander wrote:

Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.

My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided.  I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.

Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
 
Will you marry me?  love MrsHJ.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:04am

 Beaker wrote:

How very hyper-partisan of you.  I truly hope you end up eating those words.
 
how very argumentative of you. What if he's right (as the majority of valid scientific opinion indicates), and we really should be doing something to minimize our impact on climate change?  Doesn't matter, it would be much better if you got to win the argument and got to sing the "nah, nah, nah, nah" song while doing your victory dance.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:04am

 islander wrote:

Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.

My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided.  I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.

Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
 

Thank you, P.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:02am

 dionysius wrote:

If you're equating the two sides in this "debate" then I'm mystified. There's no equivalence. Climate change denial is every bit as honest, rational and respectable as the campaign to cast doubt on the harmful effects of tobacco. Remember that? (Indeed, it has many of the same motives and many of the same people behind it.) All they can do is delay the inevitable, but this delay is fatal, when we urgently need to be accomplishing something. Denial and footdragging hurts everyone, and that's hard to forgive.
 
Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.

My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided.  I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.

Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 9:25am

I'm just getting pissed off at what are clearly concerted attempts to derail Copenhagen. Grrrrrrrrrrr.  Decision time folks.  This is the point to opt in as citizens of the world.
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 9:24am

 islander wrote:

There is no longer any issue that will not be polarized into left/right, dem/repub, north/south in this country. It's not about right and wrong anymore it is about win/lose and which team are you on. It's unfortunate and will be our downfall. People truly believe that they can't have theirs if somebody else get's theirs first. We have become a mob scrambling for a dwindling supply of robotic hamsters. I doubt a majority of people even care about the base issue as long as they can win the argument/battle/election/hamster scramble.

Politics has been uglier in the past, but the political system has never been worse. And the trend line that we are following is not good.
 
If you're equating the two sides in this "debate" then I'm mystified. There's no equivalence. Climate change denial is every bit as honest, rational and respectable as the campaign to cast doubt on the harmful effects of tobacco. Remember that? (Indeed, it has many of the same motives and many of the same people behind it.) All they can do is delay the inevitable, but this delay is fatal, when we urgently need to be accomplishing something. Denial and footdragging hurts everyone, and that's hard to forgive.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 9:17am

 islander wrote:

There is no longer any issue that will not be polarized into left/right, dem/repub, north/south in this country. It's not about right and wrong anymore it is about win/lose and which team are you on. It's unfortunate and will be our downfall. People truly believe that they can't have theirs if somebody else get's theirs first. We have become a mob scrambling for a dwindling supply of robotic hamsters. I doubt a majority of people even care about the base issue as long as they can win the argument/battle/election/hamster scramble.

Politics has been uglier in the past, but the political system has never been worse. And the trend line that we are following is not good.
 

Let's all repeat it together:  Zero-sum game.  

Equals "end game."

 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 9:14am

 steeler wrote:


Just shows how polarized America has become.

One would think that this would be non-partisan issue,
but no . . .  I'm baffled by that.  And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance.  It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and  greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety.  Sad, really.   

 
There is no longer any issue that will not be polarized into left/right, dem/repub, north/south in this country. It's not about right and wrong anymore it is about win/lose and which team are you on. It's unfortunate and will be our downfall. People truly believe that they can't have theirs if somebody else get's theirs first. We have become a mob scrambling for a dwindling supply of robotic hamsters. I doubt a majority of people even care about the base issue as long as they can win the argument/battle/election/hamster scramble.

Politics has been uglier in the past, but the political system has never been worse. And the trend line that we are following is not good.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 8:58am

Just to repeat, from another source:

UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row


The UN's official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics' claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "firmly" standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.

It was responding to a row over the reliability of data from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit

Leaked e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated.

Last month, hundreds of messages between scientists at the unit and their peers around the world were put on the internet along with other documents.

Some observers alleged one of the e-mails suggested head of the unit Professor Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major assessment of climate science.

The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide
Professor Thomas Stocker and Professor Qin Dahe, IPCC

Professor Jones, who denies this was his intention, has stood down from his post while an independent inquiry takes place.

In a statement, Professor Thomas Stocker and Professor Qin Dahe, co-chairmen of the IPCC's working group 1, condemned the act of posting the private e-mails on the internet, but avoided commenting on their content.

They went on to point to a key finding that states: "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal.

" is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth.

"Through further independent scientific work involving statistical methods and a range of different climate models, these changes have been detected as significant deviations from natural climate variability and have been attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases."

They added: "The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.

There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change
Gordon Brown, Prime Minister

"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges."

The row comes ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit which starts on Monday.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, said it was no coincidence the information was released in the run-up to the summit.

He claimed unnamed conspirators could have paid for Russian hackers to break into the university computers to steal the e-mails.

He said the theft was a scandal and was "probably ordered" to disrupt the confidence negotiators have in the science.

Earlier, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC he would be "very surprised" if there had been any wrongdoing on the part of the East Anglia University scientists.

"We're in a moment when the world is about to make some big political decisions," he said.

"And there will be people who don't want the world to make those big decisions and they are trying to use this in part to say somehow this is all in doubt and perhaps we should put the whole thing off.

"Well, I just think they're wrong about that."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".

He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."

'Open and transparent'

Meanwhile, the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the IPCC.

It has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations.

John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that.

"So this is not an issue of whether we are confident or not in the figures for the trend in global warming, it's more about being open and transparent," he told the BBC.

The Met Office said it had already planned to publish the material long before the row and denied reports that government ministers had tried to block the publication.


dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 8:16am

It's all down to whom we trust: climatologists, or people who aren't.
Climate chief dismisses e-mail outrage

By Hilary Whiteman, CNN December 8, 2009 7:42 a.m. EST

(CNN) — One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.

In late November, a substantial file including more than 1,000 e-mails either sent from or to members of the University's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in eastern England were allegedly hacked and leaked on the Internet.

They contained language seized upon by climate skeptics who say they offer evidence that scientists have manipulated climate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The affair has been covered extensively in the global press under the moniker, "Climategate."

One e-mail allegedly sent by the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, refers to using "Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."

As one of the world's leading research bodies on climate change, the CRU's research was used in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007, which is considered to be the most authoritative report on climate change to date.

Pachauri told CNN there was no way that unreliable climate data could have made its way into the IPCC report.

"There are so many checks and balances in the processes and procedures that we follow at the IPCC, there is not one iota of possibility that something like this would happen," he said.

He added he would not hesitate in using the unit's information in any future IPCC reports.

"Well why not, if they are qualified in professional terms I certainly would," Pachauri said.

"I don't see any reason why they should be excluded. The fact is that their actions, their contributions have been totally above board. And they've been completely objective in what they've carried out. So I don't have any reason whatsoever to leave them out if there's a requirement and they qualify," he added.

Last week, Jones stepped down from his position as head of the CRU while a review is conducted into claims of data tampering.

The e-mails were released just three weeks before the start of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen where around 100 heads of state are meeting to agree on a new climate deal.




mem_313

mem_313 Avatar

Location: Beachside, Paradise
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 7:30am

I have a new barometer... my left ankle full of screws..
OOOO i think I should write a song about that... 
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 85, 86, 87 ... 93, 94, 95  Next