Few would argue that we've been ecologically friendly as a species over the last couple of hundred years, for sure. Looking at photos from 100 years ago, though, we've been a heck of a lot more visibly filthy in times past.
As I've said before in this thread, I'm keen to see investments in alternative energy conversion technology research. We get the sun for free. All we really need are methods of bagging the radiation and storing it effectively for use later. The waves are another freebie, as are the tides. I'm keen on seeing more wind turbines - though it'd be better if they didn't kill sheep in the future and it'd be a lot better if we didn't need to ring the UK 4-deep in them in order to generate enough power to keep us going. Current issues are efficiencies in conversion and storage, but the clean energies are there for the taking.
No need to follow - there are so many of them that they eventually follow you. Amusingly the closest to you geographically was a "Utegate". Motorsports-wise there were a couple regarding McLaren.
whether or not global warming really is a problem bruning loads of fossile fuels to provide energy for an exponentially rising number of people is not sustainable on the simple grounds that fossile fuels are naturally bound to run out before long
point is those billions will need to be spent on alternative energy soruces at some point either way so where the problem with doing it proactively now instead of in some future which may or may not be in trouble due to global warming and certainly will be a lot more dirty and polluted from all the other emission besides co2 that result from bruning coal and oil?
no but you guys desperately need some perspective
one research group is not the centre of the world no matter how high their citation index may be
again perspective
because the specifics of my scientific experience dont matter to argueing whether or not this practice is common in science
it might matter if id argue about global warming which as you may have notice im not
Ah, so now we actually get the basis of your "argument". You want the world to look for alternative energy sources now so you're happy for any evidence that leads to that end, no matter the cost to the taxpayer just now. That goes a long way to explaining your posts in this thread thus far. I happen to agree with you, by the way, but I don't think the stimulus for change should come from falsified data.
again for the hundredth billionth time when have i ever said that and would you please stop putting words into my mouth thats way more direspectful than id ever consider being to anyone on this forum
neither do i
although its hard to argue with the result of getting the blithering idiots we call our world leaders to actually do something
Of course, but that dosen't make taxing people on the amount of carbon they produce for dubious reasons any more reasonable.
And you'd be naiive to think that the money gained from these taxes would go into developing methods of alternative energy production, it'll most likely go into some war that nobody wanted or pay for an MP's porn collection.
If governments and scientists could just be (relatively) honest and say we need money to develop sustainable energy generation, it'd be fine. Rather than trying to generate a 'global warming' scare (which for all we know could be a massive lie).
How does anyone know that its not going on elsewhere? And even if it is only one research group, that isn't an acceptable excuse.
Right then, well don't go questioning other people's scientific experience as a way to counter someone else's post.
The nature journal is pretty interesting in the way it pretends the content of the emails is not damming. It's also interesting how it refers to sceptics as a "delialist fringe". Many uses of derogatory terms, such as "paranoid", "obstructionist", "harassment" etc. I certainly learned quite a bit about nature.com from its own particularly loaded wording. It's pretty apologist.
The email you quoted was created by George Monbiot, a "green" journalist whose world has been shaken quite a bit. He's pretty embarrassed about being blindly led to champion the AGW cause and he says he's ashamed to have failed in his duties as a journalist to examine the evidence behind the politics that he's promoted in the articles he's been writing for years. I'm not sure what Monbiot's going to do now. He's been shamefully exposed as a 2nd-rate journalist, but judging by his attempt at writing satire I don't think he should try to get into comedy writing. That's perhaps another career floating down the stream over this whole scandal.
There are a couple of other strange points that Nature seems to be trying to make. One is that
Firstly, scientists would not be having this problem if they were to properly present their research methods and all data along with their results. Many tricks have been used by these guys in order to hide and obfuscate various data which would seem to take up more time on their part than simply handing over the data on request or doing the right thing in the first place. If all the data is out there, then there would be no reason for any kind of 'harassment', as they see it. They are making things more difficult for themselves.
If the scientists or readers of Nature are genuinely interested in progressing the state of climate science, then they will need to start acknowledging the input and work of scientists such as Steve McIntyre and others which have so far been doing their best to call attention to shoddy science and correct it. If not for Steve M, then the original M Mann hockeystick would probably still be regarded as correct (for example), and since it's been shown to be dodgy, then the science can move forward more quickly by not referencing and building apon shoddy work.
edit: the sentence "Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden" sounds scarily like Nature is supportive of the attempts by researchers to block or refuse FOIA requests. That's just not cricket!
Also -
This implys that all the various natural forcings are known and accounted for, and are being simulated correctly in the models (a wild eyed claim as far as I'm concerned).
I agree that the overuse of the term 'denier' drags the article down.
The whole thing seems to be a gloss over.
PS, for those interested, here's a video interview with Steve McIntrye on the various hockeystick reconstructions- it's in Finnish (not Steve M though) but there are subtitles.
More on the BBC's refusal to follow any story that goes against the party line...I watched the Channel 4 12 midday news earlier and the main headline was that the so-called 'grandfather of climate change' has said he wishes the Copenhagen summit to fail, and that it is based on totally wrong principles. Ah, I thought, I'd best watch the BBC News at 1 to see what they make of this...and, surprise surprise, nothing. Absolutely no mention made of it whatsoever.
the ONE time you would hope the BBC, the GREAT BBC would live up to what you pay your licence for and it FAILS!!! Say whatever you want guys... when you needed the BBC most it has failed you... just like I said it would!
SamH start a new thread on the media coverage of this, coz there is no way I am going to! lol!
I think the BBC will be forced to do something at some point. They can't ignore it forever. However I shall bask in the glory while I can! Yh it's morally wrong to celebrate the failure of our national broadcastor but sometimes when you turn out to be SOOO right you can't help but feel good!
The dream is over http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stmfinally they had to come out with something but a line like "Climate "sceptics" have claimed that the e-mails undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, dubbing the issue "ClimateGate"." doesn't sound BIAS at all! The BBC can't help themselves sometimes.
But didn't they hold it off for as long as they could
Why did I need the BBC the most just now? I need the BBC the most when Top Gear or F1 is on. It rarely fails in the regard.
Is the BBC biased? Yes, of course it is. Everyone is. Every newspaper has its bias. Every political party has its bias. Every human being has its bias. Is that the end of the world? No. Why pay your taxes to a government that should, surely, be unbiased?
By ‘damage’ I mean techniques and actions by man which have affected the earth in some way…be it over fishing (which up here is a serious issue and our fishing fleet continually gets battered…no pun intended), over mining or the heavy reliance of fossil fuels.
I think most of us would agree that the fumes emitted from cars/buses/planes/cows arses, plus the waste produced by factories and humans in general are in deed harmful and cause some type of damage, I think one of the key areas of debate is whether that damage is reversible or not?
Let me guess....did Glen at some point break down and cry over how the evil liberals/Obama/Socialism/The Red Army are ruining everything American and pure.
Glen reminds me of the Air Force guy who went a bit nuts and sent the entire fleet of B52 bombers into Russia in Dr Strangelove
Glenn Beck is a moron. That's a scientific fact for you. I can even prove it with a wealth of empirical evidence, and everyone would be welcome to check my work.
FOX's response to the politicizing of climate science that's been exposed is to deepen the politicizing of the exposé itself. Typical idiocy from FOX, but we'd expect nothing less. Heck, it's not like they've never tampered with "evidence" to support their theories, either. They're forever getting busted for lying and deliberately manufacturing stories.
Damage to the excistance of humanity, arguable. But 'damage' to the earth? I am not sure we can actually 'damage' the earth. it is what it is. Essentially we are 'earth' so anything we do is of the earth. Earth can't damage earth.
The word damage is such an emotive term without a full explanation of what it means in relation to what we are talking about it doesn't have any real meaning. Otherwise we sound like a bunch of tree huggers!