Climategate emails, Climate Change, Prof Phil T. Beaker, COP15 Copenhagen

[tabathabunt]

nice one... =)

[Blahblahblah3210]

Heh, this was pretty funny.

[bernzeppi]

Fucking funny!

We're fucked either way

I guess we just need to find the 'slightly less fucked way'

Keep a jar of petroleum jelly in your pocket eh?

Welcome intelligent satire, thank you

[ClimateAware]

It's time for a change of direction.

Check out William Tarkovsky's youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation!

[xennelul]

There is also conflict of interest from Al Gore et al., whose investment firm is in bed with Enron who is going to trade in Carbon allowances.

The fact climategate is not being mentioned in any of the mainstream media, makes me wonder about the objectiveness of such channels.

[wonderweasel]

@HessiaCb

Roy Spenser -> cloud cover have been underestimated in the current crop of models. Conflict of interests: Heartland Institute and George C. Marshall Institute.

Richard Lindzen - Long time critical of global warming. Conflict of interests: Western Fuels, OPEC, Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

Henrik Svensmark - Cosmoclimatology theory (i.e. cosmic rays are the primary cause) - repeatedly disputed in peer reviewed journals. No know conflict of interest

[HessiaCb]

@wonderweasel

I find it very telling that you point to the standard strawman argument, that these scientists are paid by 'Big Oil' or other carbon interest groups.

Those same groups have heavily financed any research attempting to link climate change to human activity, much more so than the 'sceptic' cause.

Neither Lindzen nor Spencer have any proven financial interest, and you are blowing up strawhat arguments that would see you sued for slander outside of the internet.

Please stop lying.

[wonderweasel]

I am not lying, these conflicts of interest can be found by quickly by doing an internet searche. For example, wikipedia.

If you are going to honestly assess the situation you have to put out all points of contention and conflict.

Also Lindzen still goes on the record as being skeptical of there being link between smoking and cancer. His scientific assessments are suspect.

[HessiaCb]

Propagandist pieces won't make the shoddy science behind man-made global warming right.

If we really want to solve the coming environmental problems, we should do so on the basis of sound science, not fishy fearmongering.

Do your own research, and come up with your own conclusions. I direct you to, amongst many others, the work of:

Roy Spencer

Richard Lindzen

Henrik Svensmark

Peter L. Ward

Ps. There are billions invested into green energy - so who is REALLY paid 4 propaganda? Follow the $.

[wonderweasel]

Of course there are billions of dollars invested in green energy. Some people live in place called "reality" and have been following the fact scientists have warning about climate change for 3 or so decades now. These lunatics invested in the the future, aka green technologies. Clearly a conspiracy.

[HessiaCb]

Obivously those people, who have been following these warnings for three decades, must remember that its only three decades and a bit ago that the alarmists (those who have been warning for three decades), were screaming that a global ice age would occur because of us.

Then we have an apparent warming trend for a few decades, and what are they screaming now?

Yeah, I thought so.

Besides, the money tells the tale that: those who advocate, and those who invest, make their bed together.

[wonderweasel]

Yes three decades ago, there were claims of a global ice age, in Newsweek and Times. Hardly peer reviewed scientific journals.

In fact NO scientific article from that period ever made claims of an impending ice age (i.e. < 20,000 yrs). What was in the literature was the global cooling (aka dimming) may occur due to pollution particulates reflecting sunlight.

A literature survey from that period shows 6 papers in favour of dimming, 44 predicting CO2 warming would overwhelm dimming.

[wonderweasel]

The reference is

Peterson, T., Connolley, W. and Fleck, J. 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89 (9): 1325-1337.

Also there were 20 papers taking a neutral stance.

In summary, in 1970's - NO scientist claimed an ice age (a media myth), a few claimed continued cooling and a majority claimed warming.

Since this time the consensus behind human caused warming has only increased.

[paolo27th]

@HessiaCb Who said an Ice Age was about to come? Can you post any sources?