Surprise Surprise, "Climategate" Isn't A Massive Conspiracy

[Rahvin]

First off - your writing style is making my eyes bleed. Please contemplate the value of separating paragraphs, basic spelling, and some semblance of grammar before your next post.

Ok first off I believe the earths warming and cooling or whatever is happening at the moment

This makes it sound like you have rater no clue what it is you believe.

and I believe there are a lot of good men and women trying to figure all this stuff out. With that said some members of the believers in climate change over reacted and left us wide open for this. They kept claiming in 5 years we all will die unless we stop everything.

Who? When? Did this actually happen, or is this simply some vague sense of impending doom you have accumulated from various sensationalist media stories?

Or did you simply watch "The Day After Tomorrow" and believe that actual scientists were predicting such sudden doom, rather than movie script writers tryingto cram as much CGI destruction into a movie-length format as was possible?

I got a friend at work who says we got to stop pollution or al gore says we’ll be under water.

You have a friend.

Depending on where you live, indeed your residence could be below sea level in the relatively near future.

I ask what research says this and he says al gore.

This is hardly the fault od climate scientists or anyone involved with real climate research. "An Inconvenient Truth" was Gore's most recent attempt to bring climate change to the public's attention.

It sounds like you're specifically referring to Al Gore when you speak of over-hyped sensationalism. Do you have a specific warning given by Gore that you beleive is inaccurate?

Atop this some politions use this now to pass legislation they want in the name of planetary safety.

Indeed, which is absolutely necessary if we are to have any hope at all of slowing human-caused climate change. Do you believe that this is not the case? If not, why not?

This unfortunately added with a disturbing but not unheard of set of problems with scientists being human and some bad apples spoiling the bunch and few of the people asked to explain them doing anything but pulling the republican’s own move to pretend their nothing at all and should be ignored outright instead of understood for what they are leads to a firestorm as nobody explains them or they say their false or hacked or something else trying to ignore it rather than confront it and explain that sadly some people with the intention of tying to help the planet forgot that they could get more by proven solid data decided to try and air brush over stuff.

Periods, commas and semicolons are your friends. Really.

Further, show how any of the people in the leaked emails are "bad apples." From all fo teh emails I've read thus far (granted, a small subset of the ones released, as I jsut don;t have that much time), the supposedly damning correspondance appeared to be nothing more than scientists discussing techniques for their climate change computer model and other perfectly normal conversation. That their terminology can be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy is patently absurd, particularly when the quotes only sound "bad" when taken out of context completely.

How many of your conversations contain phrases and sentences that could be embarrassing to you if they were taken completely out of their surrounding context and read by people who frankly haven't the faintest clue what you were talking about?

This unfortunly causes set backs to what might have been good progress. For me I just rather people say it won’t be good if we do not work toward cleaning lifestyles rather than tell me I need to live under a rock or I am killing polar bears every minute by breathing.

Who is telling you to live under a rock?

The polar bear ad you seem to be referencing was not about breathing, but rather about air travel. It pointed out the fact that the average European flight produces roughly a polar bear's weight in greenhouse gasses per passenger. Do you believe their claim to be inaccurate? Do you believe that choosing a species that is particularly sensitive to climate change was inappropriate? Do you think it was wrong to attempt to shock audiences into paying attention? Why? Do you believe the problem is not serious or imminent enough to justify such a tactic?

Climate change is real, and it's already happening. The rise of sea level will be more gradual...but now is the only time we have remaining to try to slow the process. If we wait until Florida is more ocean than wetland, it will be too late to do anything about it. At that point, even if everyone on Earth did start living "under a rock," we wouldn't be able to stop the process. We need immediate and sweeping action. You don't need to revert to the stone age, but we as a society do need to immediately begin shifting to alternative power sources, reduce usage, increase efficiency, and basically do anything we can to cut emissions. We also need to begin preparing to mitigate the damage that is already inevitable.

Barring cheesy special effects movies, there has been no widespread over-sensationalism. Human society really does need to make significant changes now, or face the consequences of climate change. No, we will not all die - however, our society is based more precariously on the status quo than most people realize...and climate change involves more than simply new beachfront properties. Temperatures will continue to grow more extreme in many areas. Damaging storms will likely become significantly worse. Temperature and salinity changes in the oceans from melting ice caps can completely alter oceanic currents, which in turn drive the weather patterns of the rest of the planet. Mountain snow caps that today provide natural water storage will melt, producing flooding, and then not return, producing a permanent drought in areas that depend on them. Rising sea levels will not simply cover some existing land in water, but will contaminate subterranean water supplies with salt water, making them undrinkable. The list goes on. And we have to do something about it today. Preferably 40 years ago, but we unfortunately can't manage that. We're approaching (and some say past) the point of no return here, where even the fastest and most sweeping changes will no longer be able to even slow the process.

What precisely have climate scientists actually done wrong, given the real severity of the problem?

[Darth Wong]

With that said some members of the believers in climate change over reacted and left us wide open for this. They kept claiming in 5 years we all will die unless we stop everything.

Bullshit. Show me evidence of climate researchers claiming we'll all die in 5 years unless we stop all emissions.

I got a friend at work who says we got to stop pollution or al gore says we’ll be under water. I ask what research says this and he says al gore.

Yeah, sure. I'm sure this is a real person and this conversation actually happened exactly the way you described it. Right. Not an obvious fabrication at all.

[Julhelm]

Why do they always need to call it '-gate' something? That just sounds lame.

[Akhlut]

Why do they always need to call it '-gate' something? That just sounds lame.

Because of the Watergate scandal with Nixon, which was partially due to the Committee to Re-Elect the President tapping phonelines at the Watergate hotel.

Since then, every major political scandal in the US involves "-gate" now.

[Tellos]

I did not say researchers said 5 years this was an exaggerated example of how scared I feel I am told I should feel. Far as e-mail context I am sure plenty are I refer to reports of supposedly dumped data fox and CNN have cited same with the aforementioned commercial, I was merely referring to the commercial and the newly reported status of the Co2 we breath out as poison despite the fact plants take this in and grant us the air we do breath. Far as my spelling officer doesn’t catch all errors and I never have been a superb writer so sorry your eyes are so sensitive to my writing I’ll keep trying to get better until then may I suggest growing stronger eyes. As far as Al gore I didn’t say he said this I am referencing somebody else if this is incorrect I am glad you corrected it.

[Tellos]

Ah wait correction as I look back on my own post I see where my fault was I did say researchers said that which wasn’t what I meant to say so I fault myself for using poor choice of words. For that statement I retract it fully as it is incorrect and inaccurate, now this next claim I make I will provide a source [not Wikipedia] to back it up namely that despite the Kyoto treaty with nations pledging to lower emissions and from what I read some even well into meeting those goals carbon levels are raising so how does that happen despite many countries making legislation? I grant you the US did not ratify it much to the detriment of the plan and I do not think china did but china now is a bigger spewer of carbon than us.

Here is the link to the story I got the information from.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/othe ... 69230.html

[Darth Wong]

It is, I think, ironic that you engaged in exaggerated hyperbole in your effort to denigrate "climate change believers" for engaging in ... exaggerated hyperbole.

I was merely referring to the commercial and the newly reported status of the Co2 we breath out as poison despite the fact plants take this in and grant us the air we do breath.

Ummm, CO2 is poison. That is a fact. That's why you can actually die of CO2 poisoning if you're stuck in a sealed environment and the CO2 level gets too high. That's not "climate change believers" talking; that's a medical fact. You might want to brush up on your basic human physiology.

[The Yosemite Bear]

or they can stand in a hermetically sealed room, without CO2 scrubbers...

I support that for people who don't believe in pulllution control, just as I feel that people who don't believe in Evolution/natural selection should be deneyed modern anti-boiotics...

[Tellos]

A poor choice as I admited myself more out of being tired and just find the need for commericals funny, in the end it hardly changes the fact we will need to find serious solutions to living on the earth in a more responsible way as our population grows and resources grow more finite. Far as Co2 I only know what sparse little I was taught back in middle school, it seems corrections have been made and since I was never a health major my area of expertise is Information technology. your likely right and my next library trip I should pick up one or two books on human physiology and plant life. Thank you for the suggestion and the corrections to the innacurate statments made by me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was merely referring to the commercial and the newly reported status of the Co2 we breath out as poison despite the fact plants take this in and grant us the air we do breath.

So tell me... is your IQ above freezing?

CO2 is used by plants and it reacts with water, powered by sunlight to produce free O2. But it is also what we expel and is a poison to our metabolism. There are places in volcanically active areas that have high concentrations of CO2 in sinkholes. Those sinkholes are natural death traps to anything that walks inside and can rapidly accumulate the corpses of every predator and scavenger that tries to take advantage of it as a food source.

In the atmosphere it traps infrared light re-radiated from the earths crust and helps keep our planet habitable, but at sufficiently high concentrations traps too much and the earth starts to warm. As this occurs the ocean acidifies and warms, and the icecaps melt. This kills off the algae that supplies a large portion of our oxygen and serves as a natural sink for CO2, and gets rid of the nice reflective icy coat that reflects visible light into space leaving it to be absorbed by sea water. This creates a positive feedback loop that accelerates warming.

Very very simple.

[Tellos]

If my IQ were below freezing as you put it I'd not be typing. But I'll ignore the personal attack and move to your statment. Again I stated I am not an expert on this subject I stood corrected and I shall again restate you in this case up now even simple internet level research are correct in your defining Co2 as a posion, does this awsner your question?

[bobalot]

If my IQ were below freezing as you put it I'd not be typing. But I'll ignore the personal attack and move to your statment. Again I stated I am not an expert on this subject I stood corrected and I shall again restate you in this case up now even simple internet level research are correct in your defining Co2 as a posion, does this awsner your question?

Translation: I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this subject, but it's mean to make fun of me for being stupid when I say something stupid about this subject.

[Tellos]

I don't care if he wants to waste engery making fun of me have a laugh. Stupid hardly was I taught wrong information from the looks of it yes. least unlike some of the trolls and morons you have come in here from what I have read I'll admit when I am wrong, better to admit your wrong and learn from it than cling to the veiw your right in the face of the facts or do you not agree?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If my IQ were below freezing as you put it I'd not be typing. But I'll ignore the personal attack and move to your statment. Again I stated I am not an expert on this subject I stood corrected and I shall again restate you in this case up now even simple internet level research are correct in your defining Co2 as a posion, does this awsner your question?

Translation: I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this subject, but it's mean to make fun of me for being stupid when I say something stupid about this subject.

Well there is that, and the fact that his grammar is so broken that I have a difficult time understanding it. It is worse than it would be if he put it through a Korean-->english translator, or had translated it from latin to klingon and then into english.

[Tellos]

Well seeing as we have completely left the subject at hand I will thank you for the debate congradulate you on winning and bid you the best until the next debate we do have.

[bobalot]

Well seeing as we have completely left the subject at hand I will thank you for the debate congradulate you on winning and bid you the best until the next debate we do have.

Left the subject? With your obvious feeble understanding of the subject, it's hard to see that we ever on the subject. But feel free to post arguments backed up with evidence (Hopefully in a readable format).

[Ritterin Sophia]

Hold up, before he leaves, I want to know what a 'polition' is.

[mr friendly guy]

Since I am in a nice mood I will try and help the newbie out. Tellos if you lack knowledge about something ask politely. Don't go blatantly declaring something is like this then saying you are ignorant after you are called out. It indicates a level of arrogance that you think you can just bluff your way through along with a lack of thinking.

One can also research it. Now it might be hard to read up enough about a topic ( for example I read through several popular science books * before I understood enough about evolution to debate it). However if you have a proper bullshit detector some things should be blatantly obvious. To use a non science example, lets take the run of the mill scam. You have won x number of dollars, but you need to pay us some money to withdraw it. It doesn't take a genius to ask why don't they just deduct the withdrawal cost from my winnings, and maybe its a scam.

Lets take some of the anti global warming letters I see in my local paper.

1. CO2 isn't bad, its a essential part of life.

Even if you had no idea that CO2 was a poison, any one who isn't a moron could tell you that logic is broken. He is assuming an either / or scenario, either CO2 must be completely bad or good. The concept that its bad in certain situations or bad in excessive amounts don't even enter into their simplistic thinking. If you can't figure out what is wrong logically with it, you can fall back to using other examples.

To elaborate, thats like saying we need water to survive (ie its essential to life) therefore surf life savers shouldn't be scaring us with this scare campaign about drowning.

2. Green house gases was more numerous in the past

The implication is that they can't be causing global warming now. Again its an either / or scenario, either green house gases cause it or it doesn't cause temp fluctuations. This fails to take into account that they maybe more than one cause of temperature fluctuations. In fact from my limited knowledge green houses gases were thought to be higher in the distant past because the sun was producing less heat yet the earth still had enough warmth for water to exist as a liquid (as opposed to as ice).

3. Global warming is caused by solar radiation, position of the earth's axis, <insert other cause>

The logical thing to do is ask those who claim it to show evidence rather than just stating it.

4. Temperature changes occurred in past when humans were around hundreds/ thousands of years ago. Did we cause it then?

This implication seems to be the same as point 2, ie some other factor was causing it. Again they fail to consider that there are more than one factors, and that humans have only recently become one. All you need to know about the debate is that the global warming side is saying humans contribute to climate change with pollution from our industry, so we obviously couldn't cause climate change back BEFORE we had industry could we.

5. The global warming side has an ulterior motive. Usually along the lines of funding or its become a new religion for them etc.

I am going to leave this to you to work out why this logic is broken.

Suffice to say even with a limited knowledge of the debate, its obvious to me one side is sprouting bullshit and breaking logic over their backs, which doesn't bode well.

* when I say popular science books I mean books written by scientist for the general public or the lay person

[Darth Wong]

One of the biggest problems with global warming deniers is that they think the Earth's past cycles of warming and cooling mean that it must be "natural", and that "natural" somehow means "not influenced by us".

The entire environmental history of planet Earth has been influenced by life: its advent, its multiplication, its diversity, and yes, its effluents. In other words, plants created the first life-driven shift in Earth's atmosphere, by pumping free oxygen into it. Animals then reduced this free oxygen by breathing it and pumping out various pollutants such as carbon dioxide and methane. We are part of this system; the idea that "nature" somehow excludes carbon dioxide emissions is just monstrously stupid, and yet it underlies the whole "nature vs human emission" false dilemma argument which is part and parcel of conservative thinking on this subject.

Another thing conservatives need to understand is that they're not actually being conservative. The word "conservative" really means "cautious" in most contexts, and it is anything but cautious to assume that if there's any doubt, we should always err on the side of assuming everything will be fine.

[Darth Wong]

I was merely referring to the commercial and the newly reported status of the Co2 we breath out as poison despite the fact plants take this in and grant us the air we do breath.

So tell me... is your IQ above freezing?

CO2 is used by plants and it reacts with water, powered by sunlight to produce free O2. But it is also what we expel and is a poison to our metabolism. There are places in volcanically active areas that have high concentrations of CO2 in sinkholes. Those sinkholes are natural death traps to anything that walks inside and can rapidly accumulate the corpses of every predator and scavenger that tries to take advantage of it as a food source.

You really have to wonder about the kind of logic that might lead one to conclude that CO2 must be perfectly healthy since we expel it naturally from our bodies. We naturally expel urine and feces from our bodies as well, after all. In fact, we generally expel things from our bodies because they are not good for us. Even without actual medical knowledge, you have to wonder how someone can come to such a bizarre conclusion.

[Lusankya]

Personally, I never got the whole fixation on whether or not it was "natural". Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's good for us. Cyclones and earthquakes are "natural" too, but if someone proposed not making adequate preparations to mitigate the damage caused by that kind of disaster on the basis that they were "natural", then most people would consider that person to be stupid.

So what if it's part of a natural cyclical change in temperature? It should still be in our best interests to ensure that we remain at the most liveable part of the cycle.