Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[Le TVR]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Oakey said:

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

Bullst.

Basic credit trading for 2009 up 68% at 136 Billion dollars alone.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/08/glob...

[foreverdriving]

Off topic question...

Has there ever been a parliamentary inquiry where the party/parties under investigation haven't been completely exonerated? It seems that EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone is investigated, they always get off scot-free and sent home with a box of chocolates.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Le TVR said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Oakey said:

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

Bullst.

Basic credit trading for 2009 up 68% at 136 Billion dollars alone.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/08/glob...

Do you know the first thing about trading?

I could go and buy 100 lots of dec 10 ECX futures at market now, and then immediately sell them. I'd have transacted a volume of approximately 2.8 million euros notionally, but the money I would have kindly donated to the market would only be around ten thousand euros.

If I were intelligent about executing it I would donate a lot less.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 15th April 14:43

[Le TVR]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Le TVR said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Oakey said:

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

Bullst.

Basic credit trading for 2009 up 68% at 136 Billion dollars alone.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/08/glob...

Do you know the first thing about trading?



I could go and buy 100 lots of dec 10 ECX futures at market now, and then immediately sell them. I'd have transacted a volume of approximately 2.8 million euros notionally, but the money I would have kindly donated to the market would only be around ten thousand euros.

If I were intelligent about executing it I would donate a lot less.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 15th April 14:43

Take Arcelormittal then the credits they have sold off over the last few years have made what?, say 1 billion extra on the books. Just one company.

Edited by Le TVR on Thursday 15th April 14:59

[Somewhatfoolish]

Le TVR said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Le TVR said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Oakey said:

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

Bullst.

Basic credit trading for 2009 up 68% at 136 Billion dollars alone.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/08/glob...

Do you know the first thing about trading?



I could go and buy 100 lots of dec 10 ECX futures at market now, and then immediately sell them. I'd have transacted a volume of approximately 2.8 million euros notionally, but the money I would have kindly donated to the market would only be around ten thousand euros.

If I were intelligent about executing it I would donate a lot less.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 15th April 14:43

Take Arcelormittal then the credits they have sold off over the last few years have made what?, say 1 billion extra on the books. Just one company.

Edited by Le TVR on Thursday 15th April 14:59

One... very large company.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Somewhatfoolish said:

No, actually, it isn't. That's my most important point. The crux is what we should be doing about it, and denying an incredibly strong consensus is just handing control over to.. I believe the term is watermelons (green on outside, red in the centre)... and that could be irreperable.

Ultimately we're going to need to master geo-engineering/terraforming anyway when the sun starts turning into a red giant, might as well start practicing on earth...

Yes...you're completely right regarding the future direction of energy generation...and I think pretty much everyone on this site would agree with you.



What we all take exception to is the speed at which we are embracing all this green technology.

For one, the technology is far too inefficient and costly still to be a viable alternative to current power solutions. Again, the only 'Green', yet viable solution at the moment is to go Nuclear......so why aren't we!?

Forcing these changes onto the public is not on. Yes, we should strive to become more efficient, but not at the expense of crippling the economy. Now is definately not the time to be asking people to pay more for green. Now is the time to be doing everything in order to alleviate the stress and pressure on small businesses and families.....that means me put luxuries such as Green technology on the back burner until we are back in a position to be able to afford it.

As stated previously, for each 'Green Job' created at the moment, there are 2.2 regular jobs being lost. And that is due to the schemes and impositions put on us by this government's green policies. That certainly is not going to help the economy. So when you hear people talking about all these new 'green' jobs being created.....think of the people that have had to lose their job in order for this single job to be created.


Yes, we need to get away from our dependance on fossil fuels, etc, ...BUT.... why the rush!? The planet is not dieing at the hands of humans, and they keep finding new deposits of oil every year as the drilling technology ....so let's take our time and work out a long term, sustainable solution. One that doesn't send our already crippled country over the edge. After this governments recent track record, I have absolutely no doubt that they would be able to screw this up in the most monumental way, and send this country backwards rather than forwards.


BUT the biggest problem with all this crap, is that the protection of the planet IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!!!!


All you need to do is look at the policies/ schemes taken up (and those that have been rejected) to see that the only thing the governments are interested in is MONEY! The safety and sanctity of the environment is not even considered.

Just take the whole Carbon Trading Market for the clearest example of this!? How is this supposed to 'save' the planet? It doesn't cut the amount of emissions.......just makes sure poeple are making money for it. Wealth distribution on a global scale is all it is.

If you honestly think that all this being done for the sake of the 'Environment'.....you more gullable and niaive than I thought possible.

Renewable energy is the future, thats for certain..........but it is not the immediate future. So stop crippling the 'average joe' in order to pay for all these innefficient schemes. Just look at the joke the wind farms have become.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 15th April 15:08

[Somewhatfoolish]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

No, actually, it isn't. That's my most important point. The crux is what we should be doing about it, and denying an incredibly strong consensus is just handing control over to.. I believe the term is watermelons (green on outside, red in the centre)... and that could be irreperable.

Ultimately we're going to need to master geo-engineering/terraforming anyway when the sun starts turning into a red giant, might as well start practicing on earth...

Yes...you're completely right regarding the future direction of energy generation...and I think pretty much everyone on this site would agree with you.



What we all take exception to is the speed at which we are embracing all this green technology.

For one, the technology is far too inefficient and costly still to be a viable alternative to current power solutions. Again, the only 'Green', yet viable solution at the moment is to go Nuclear......so why aren't we!?

Forcing these changes onto the public is not on. Yes, we should strive to become more efficient, but not at the expense of crippling the economy. Now is definately not the time to be asking people to pay more for green. Now is the time to be doing everything in order to alleviate the stress and pressure on small businesses and families.....that means me put luxuries such as Green technology on the back burner until we are back in a position to be able to afford it.

As stated previously, for each 'Green Job' created at the moment, there are 2.2 regular jobs being lost. And that is due to the schemes and impositions put on us by this government's green policies. That certainly is not going to help the economy. So when you hear people talking about all these new 'green' jobs being created.....think of the people that have had to lose their job in order for this single job to be created.


Yes, we need to get away from our dependance on fossil fuels, etc, ...BUT.... why the rush!? The planet is not dieing at the hands of humans, and they keep finding new deposits of oil every year as the drilling technology ....so let's take our time and work out a long term, sustainable solution. One that doesn't send our already crippled country over the edge. After this governments recent track record, I have absolutely no doubt that they would be able to screw this up in the most monumental way, and send this country backwards rather than forwards.


BUT the biggest problem with all this crap, is that the protection of the planet IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!!!!!


All you need to do is look at the policies/ schemes taken up (and those that have been rejected) to see that the only thing the governments are interested in is MONEY! The safety and sanctity of the environment is not even considered.

Just take the whole Carbon Trading Market for the clearest example of this!? How is this supposed to 'save' the planet? It doesn't cut the amount of emissions.......just makes sure poeple are making money for it. Wealth distribution on a global scale is all it is.

If you honestly think that all this being done for the sake of the 'Environment'.....you more gullable and niaive than I thought possible.

Renewable energy is the future, thats for certain..........but it is not the immediate future. So stop crippling the 'average joe' in order to pay for all these innefficient schemes. Just look at the joke the wind farms have become.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 15th April 15:08

Fine and generally agreed, but that's a completely different discussion to the science.

[tinman0]

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

Prof Lisa Graumich
Expert in Global Warming
http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Pe...

Prof Herbert Huppert
Department of Life Sciences
Current research: Formation of sea ice in polar leads

Prof Kerry Emanuel
Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
Likes to write about Hurricanes.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

So that's three of the 6 who already fail the impartiality test!

[ludo]

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

Prof Lisa Graumich
Expert in Global Warming
http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Pe...

Prof Herbert Huppert
Department of Life Sciences
Current research: Formation of sea ice in polar leads

Prof Kerry Emanuel
Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
Likes to write about Hurricanes.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

So that's three of the 6 who already fail the impartiality test!

So the panel assessing the science shouldn't involve anyone who might actually know something about the science, nice!

[esselte]

ludo said:

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

Prof Lisa Graumich
Expert in Global Warming
http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Pe...

Prof Herbert Huppert
Department of Life Sciences
Current research: Formation of sea ice in polar leads

Prof Kerry Emanuel
Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
Likes to write about Hurricanes.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

So that's three of the 6 who already fail the impartiality test!

So the panel assessing the science shouldn't involve anyone who might actually know something about the science, nice!

I thought they were just assessing the way the "science" was conducted...

"...The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation
of the data..."

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fine and generally agreed, but that's a completely different discussion to the science.

Not when the science is being 'Used' & 'Abused' to create fictional scenarios in order to scare the public into thinking the governments actions are for the 'Greater good' (when really it's to line the pockets, and increase tax revenue).


They keep claiming Scientific consensus when it is quite clear from a quick internet search, and a bit of background reading, that no such 'Consensus' exists! Even if a small minority of the community disagree......it cannot be called a consensus!



And, even after all the science and models, and willy waving.........we are still left with, what is essentially, an Assumption!!

AGW is nothing more than an assumption based on what has been 'disproved' so far. They have all this data (manipulated or not), and this data tells them the planet is warming. They also have a graph showing C02 increase over the last century. BUT.....they do not have any bit of evidence, or data that SHOWS the Anthropogenic aspect of C02 emissions is what is causing a temperature rise. They have two bits of data....but no link! So it is purely an assumption.

And we know what they say about assumptions dont we

The scientists have also failed to prove that the 'supposed' temperature increase is anything other than natural variance in the climate cycle.



So based on this LACK OF A DIRECT LINK, I have been shown nothing to disprove that Nature is not at hand here.


And when you consider how little we still understand about our climate, how can anyone make the assumption that Humans are at fault, when soooooo many other factors have not even been considered.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 15th April 15:31

[ludo]

esselte said:

ludo said:

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

Prof Lisa Graumich
Expert in Global Warming
http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Pe...

Prof Herbert Huppert
Department of Life Sciences
Current research: Formation of sea ice in polar leads

Prof Kerry Emanuel
Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
Likes to write about Hurricanes.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

So that's three of the 6 who already fail the impartiality test!

So the panel assessing the science shouldn't involve anyone who might actually know something about the science, nice!

I thought they were just assessing the way the "science" was conducted...

"...The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation
of the data..."

so tell me, how could they determine whether the conclusions were a scientifically justified interpretation if nobody on the panel had expertise in the science? You need expertise and experience to detect flaws and inconsistencies, it isn't like maths where they just need to prove you can get from one equation to the next by symbolic manipulation, you need to know what it actually means.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Fine and generally agreed, but that's a completely different discussion to the science.

Not when the science is being 'Used' & 'Abused' to create fictional scenarios in order to scare the public into thinking the governments actions are for the 'Greater good' (when really it's to line the pockets, and increase tax revenue).


They keep claiming Scientific consensus when it is quite clear from a quick internet search, and a bit of background reading, that no such 'Consensus' exists! Even if a small minority of the community disagree......it cannot be called a consensus!



And, even after all the science and models, and willy waving.........we are still left with, what is essentially, an Assumption!!

AGW is nothing more than an assumption based on what has been 'disproved' so far. They have all this data (manipulated or not), and this data tells them the planet is warming. They also have a graph showing C02 increase over the last century. BUT.....they do not have any bit of evidence, or data that SHOWS the Anthropogenic aspect of C02 emissions is what is causing a temperature rise. They have two bits of data....but no link! So it is purely an assumption.


The scientists have also failed to prove that the 'supposed' temperature increase is anything other than natural variance in the climate cycle.



So based on this LACK OF A DIRECT LINK, I have been shown nothing to disprove that Nature is not at hand here.


And when you consider how little we still understand about our climate, how can anyone make the assumption that Humans are at fault, when soooooo many other factors have not even been considered.

It's quite clear from an internet search that there's a huge controversy about whether evolution happened or god created the heavens and earth 6000 years ago. Oh, and the British Royal Family - Germans, Shape Shifting Lizards, or both?

[chris watton]

It is pointless arguing with them; they now have their little whitewashed report and feel vindicated, which is why, I suspect, they’ve all crawled out from the woodwork with their semi-vitriolic posts.
If their livelihoods, ideologies, or both depend on this, it is a waste of time – they are no different to those agents ‘doing the Lord’s work’ a millennia ago – nothing really changes, no matter how evolved we like to think we are.

I also notice the term ‘denier’ being used like confetti today!

[esselte]

chris watton said:

It is pointless arguing with them; they now have their little whitewashed report and feel vindicated, which is why, I suspect, they’ve all crawled out from the woodwork with their semi-vitriolic posts.
If their livelihoods, ideologies, or both depend on this, it is a waste of time – they are no different to those agents ‘doing the Lord’s work’ a millennia ago – nothing really changes, no matter how evolved we like to think we are.

I also notice the term ‘denier’ being used like confetti today!

"Creationist" is beginning to make an appearance too...

[Somewhatfoolish]

chris watton said:

It is pointless arguing with them

Feeling's mutual...

[Jinx]

ludo said:

so tell me, how could they determine whether the conclusions were a scientifically justified interpretation if nobody on the panel had expertise in the science?

So only those already committed to AGW are qualified to test the AGW hypothesis?

ludo said:

You need expertise and experience to detect flaws and inconsistencies, it isn't like maths where they just need to prove you can get from one equation to the next by symbolic manipulation, you need to know what it actually means.

Mathematics is a little bit more than symbolic manipulation (well it was when I studied it at University) and if you don't know what the symbols symbolise you are not going to get very far. The inability of the AGW to satisify rigorous socratic logic tends to imply it is unscientific (therefore it is a belief not a theory).

[cs02rm0]

ludo said:

it isn't like maths where they just need to prove you can get from one equation to the next by symbolic manipulation, you need to know what it actually means.

If that's your understanding of maths, it's cleared quite a lot up for me!

[tinman0]

ludo said:

esselte said:

ludo said:

tinman0 said:

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

Prof Lisa Graumich
Expert in Global Warming
http://4dweb.proclim.ch/4dcgi/proclim/en/Detail_Pe...

Prof Herbert Huppert
Department of Life Sciences
Current research: Formation of sea ice in polar leads

Prof Kerry Emanuel
Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
Likes to write about Hurricanes.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

So that's three of the 6 who already fail the impartiality test!

So the panel assessing the science shouldn't involve anyone who might actually know something about the science, nice!

I thought they were just assessing the way the "science" was conducted...

"...The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation
of the data..."

so tell me, how could they determine whether the conclusions were a scientifically justified interpretation if nobody on the panel had expertise in the science? You need expertise and experience to detect flaws and inconsistencies, it isn't like maths where they just need to prove you can get from one equation to the next by symbolic manipulation, you need to know what it actually means.

What science? The whole thing is subject to millions upon millions of measurements. No science in reading a graph.

Climate change is an exercise in measuring and comparing. Anyone who can count to ten and use a ruler could do what they do.

[Somewhatfoolish]

esselte said:

chris watton said:

It is pointless arguing with them; they now have their little whitewashed report and feel vindicated, which is why, I suspect, they’ve all crawled out from the woodwork with their semi-vitriolic posts.
If their livelihoods, ideologies, or both depend on this, it is a waste of time – they are no different to those agents ‘doing the Lord’s work’ a millennia ago – nothing really changes, no matter how evolved we like to think we are.

I also notice the term ‘denier’ being used like confetti today!

"Creationist" is beginning to make an appearance too...

To be completely fair, evolution is more settled than AGW. I think it would be reasonable at this point to call evolution as much a fact as gravity, and evolution by natural selection pretty much as close.

What I was suggesting is the tactics used by deniers are very similar to the tactics used by creationists. Or birthers, or no-more-fiat-money conspiracists... in fact one very often finds that there's quite an intersection.