# Climategate?



## Vladd67

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs
OK any comments?
God I hate the use of Gate and the end of a word, lazy headline writing


----------



## skeptical

It does not surprise me that, out of literally thousands of emails, the odd one has a comment that can look bad when taken out of context. However, it does not change the science.

If you carefully study 61 megabytes of *anyone's* files, you will find a few bits and pieces that can be made to look bad.

I have always been a bit sceptical of some aspects of climate change ideology. But not of the good data. It is interpretation that can come unstuck. There is a well researched psychological quirk of human nature that can appear. That is, if a bunch of people get together who are in agreement on some subject, and who then discuss that subject at length, their views will become more and more extreme. The classic example is Muslim fundamentalists who are concerned about an apparent hostility to their faith from the West. After a few hundred hours discussing the subject, they become extremists and organisations like Al Qaeda are born.

I strongly suspect that the climate change extremists fall into this category. It is very clear that the private claims of such as Dr. James Hansen are very different to the peer reviewed publications of the IPCC and the Goddard Space Centre etc., when writing about climate change. If we focus on the latter, and ignore the extremist views, we get a better view of reality.

Direct measurements show that world temperatures have been increasing on average at 0.08C per decade over the past three decades, and that the most likely culprit is human generated greenhouse gases. This is good data, and no amount of political chicanery can change that.

It is unfortunate when the occasional extremist, climate change alarmist, says things that soil the reputation of the entire issue.


----------



## Sephiroth

What Skeptical said, pretty much.  


If certain members of Hadley CRU have been 'at it', that's very disappointing, and certainly very embarrassing for the institution.  

To suggest that such events in any way weaken the case for anthropogenic global warming is ridiculous, however.  

And regardless of any transgressions by the scientists mentioned in the piece, the article itself is hardly objective.  The writer makes his utter disdain for the very concept of AGW clear throughout, which does not seem to make him a good candidate for reporting a balanced viewpoint of the issue (to put it mildly).


----------



## Drachir

All of the data regarding global warming aside; there are a few observations I would like to make.

1. It is almost the end of November and temperatures where I live (53 degrees north in western Canada) are still rising above freezing every day, I am still wearing my fall jacket instead of my winter coat, and we don't have a lick of snow.  
2. A record high temperature for November was established just days ago.  
3. Every glacier in Canada is receding.  
4. Glacial prairie ponds created during the last ice age are rapidly disappearing due to a lack of rainfall and snow melt.
5. The last few years have featured less precipitation in this area than in the driest years of the Dirty Thirties.  

I rest my case.


----------



## Dave

Drachir - the evidence is mounting, but the isolated cases like those you cite, and others such as the increasing number of hurricanes, and the record amount of rainfall that fell on Cumbria yesterday, are not sufficient scientific proof.

We do not have measurements for a long enough period to prove with absolute surety anthropogenic global warming one way or the other, and we never will either. There are people who believe very strongly one way or the other, and that frustration puts pressure on them to be selective and economical with their findings. Science has always been so, nothing has changed, that is why peer review exists. 

There is a proven mechanism for global warming with the greenhouse effect. There has been a steady and increasing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since Roman times. This is sufficient for me. The argument used to be that global warming did not exist at all, now it exists but it is not man-made. Instead it is a result of natural emissions from volcanic activity and nothing we can do will stop it. There is no science to prove this, but there is no science to disprove it either. For me, it is not a question of faith, or of politics, or some conspiracy theory. Clearly we are producing more greenhouse gases than ever before, and it seems disingenuous to believe that there is any other reason than this.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Aye. Adding -gate to something is usually dire (I make an exception for the Jacqui Smith expenses scandal: masturgate).

Dave, if CO2 alone were the cause we wouldn't've had the warm period in the Roman and Middle Age eras, nor would temperature have declined (1998 remains the hottest on record).

The ratchet effect is being put to good use by the true believers, if something is within normal boundaries they just say "It's winter, what do you expect?" and if anything (hotter, colder, windier, drier, wetter) abnormal occurs it's always 'proof' of man's evil global warming.

I'm more sceptical of the zealous fervour of some global warming propagandists than the data (although I'm rather cynical about that as well).


----------



## Dave

thaddeus6th said:


> Dave, if CO2 alone were the cause we wouldn't've had the warm period in the Roman and Middle Age eras, nor would temperature have declined (1998 remains the hottest on record).


It obviously isn't the cause 'alone', or else the system is so complex that feedbacks negate and increase the effects. I believe the Sun is much more unstable than is currently believed - the little ice ages when the Thames froze over are linked to sunspot phenomena. Also increased volcanic activity tends to produce atmospheric dust as well as gases, and in the short term dust has a much greater cooling effect - Krakatoa, Mount St. Helens


----------



## Nik

*The Tides ! The Tides !!*

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change

Just to add a little spice, these claim to have found a correlation between the tides and the climate...

Toss in 'black swan' events like volcanos and ice-dam mega-floods, and you'd probably get a fair match...

Though not mentioned in the referenced article, which concentrates on cycles and possible 'stirring', I must wonder about ice shelves...

Seems to me that glaciers and ice-shelves exposed to sea will be more vulnerable during phases when the tidal range is larger...

FWIW, the next solar-max should provide enough data to kill off some of the competing hypotheses about WTF is going on inside our Sun. Either we get a 'meek & wilky' max, or we get a super-max scorcher. Or, we've had a 'glitch', a 'short-cycle', and the next is 'business as usual'...

At least the solar cycles are *usually* on a shorter time-scale than dramatic climate change. Yeah, I saw that sediment data that suggested the 'Younger Dryas' (sp) mini-ice-age came on within two (2) years after the Laurentide ice-dam's mega-flood quenched / diverted the Gulf Stream...

Gotta hope that the extreme AGW proponents are wrong, and the Greenland ice-cap's not about to slough, quenching the Gulf Stream...

D'uh, a Little Ice-Age would hurt: I *remember* the ghastly UK Winter of '63, also those a decade later when I had to dig a path around to our bins and out to the kerb. I'm not tooo bothered about modest sea-level rise, as our area carries the reassuringly dry-foot Medieval suffix, 'On The Hill'...


----------



## Sparrow

It's the shell game the Conservatives and Mega-Corporations want you to play. Has climate data been fudged and even fabricated to fit a doomsday scenario, hell yes, by corrupt scientists who are after prestige and more grant money. Human activity doesn't cause Climate Change, so let's all get back to business as usual...
We best not throw the baby out with the bath water on this one.

We're polluting the planet at astounding levels, that and overpopulation are causing animals and plants to go *poof* right out of existence. 
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

That's why change is needed, AGW be damned.


Have we had dramatic climate shifts of short durations in the not so distant past that could not have possibly been caused by Man?.. yes of course.  But I'll remind you that the Industrial Revolution began some three hundred years ago, and only very recently, in the last hundred years, has it had a substantial impact on our environment. We're still in virgin territory, we don't know what comes next.  If we fail to change our living habits in the near future and the Third World ramps up as it appears it will, do you not see the risk involved by believing humanity can't yet affect dramatic climate change?

And if all this pollution isn't a concern to climate patterns, shouldn't it still be a concern for all the other damage it causes?


----------



## skeptical

Like so much else in this world, climate change ideas should be kept in balance.

Is the world warming?  yes.
Are greenhouse gases increasing?  Yes.
Is this due to human activity?  Yes.
Should humanity be taking remedial action?  Yes.

Anyone who denies any of the above is being utterly unrealistic.   However, there are also climate change extremists who are preaching an unrealistic view in the other direction.   eg.  Al. Gore (who is estimated by The Economist to have made $ 100 million from his anti-global warming activities.)

We should try to keep things in balance, instead of taking extreme views.  For example :  as has already been pointed out, there are other factors affecting climate besides greenhouse gases.   The sunspot cycle, for example, causes an average temperature change of 0.02C from maximum to minimum.   This is a full quarter of the per decade warming from greenhouse gases over the past 30 years, so is significant.

The 1998 temperature peak was due to a very strong El Nino weather pattern.   There was a period of several years after Pinatubo blew its top when winters got colder.

We should recognise these factors, but also face the fact that there is a slow, steady warming, and sea level rise due to human activities.   And we need to work on this, and get the trend stopped or reversed.


----------



## Drachir

Dave said:


> Drachir - the evidence is mounting, but the isolated cases like those you cite, and others such as the increasing number of hurricanes, and the record amount of rainfall that fell on Cumbria yesterday, are not sufficient scientific proof.
> 
> We do not have measurements for a long enough period to prove with absolute surety anthropogenic global warming one way or the other, and we never will either. There are people who believe very strongly one way or the other, and that frustration puts pressure on them to be selective and economical with their findings. Science has always been so, nothing has changed, that is why peer review exists.
> 
> There is a proven mechanism for global warming with the greenhouse effect. There has been a steady and increasing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since Roman times. This is sufficient for me. The argument used to be that global warming did not exist at all, now it exists but it is not man-made. Instead it is a result of natural emissions from volcanic activity and nothing we can do will stop it. There is no science to prove this, but there is no science to disprove it either. For me, it is not a question of faith, or of politics, or some conspiracy theory. Clearly we are producing more greenhouse gases than ever before, and it seems disingenuous to believe that there is any other reason than this.




Sorry, maybe I should have mentioned that outdoor hockey rinks which used to be in service at the beginning of November are now unused until the middle of December.  

Seriously what really annoys me is that vested interests look at all of the scientific evidence and reject it in favour a single contrary report by some hireling of the coal or oil industry.  Either that, or they use it to justify the expansion of dead-end alternatives like nuclear power.  We've got a great number of do-nothing governments that are quite willing to sit on their hands until they are faced with a crisis situation rather than making even the slightest effort to avert the crisis.  As a result the cost to society will probably be many times more than it would have been if appropraite action had been taken earlier.


----------



## Dave

Drachir said:


> Seriously what really annoys me is that vested interests look at all of the scientific evidence and reject it in favour a single contrary report by some hireling of the coal or oil industry.  Either that, or they use it to justify the expansion of dead-end alternatives like nuclear power.  We've got a great number of do-nothing governments that are quite willing to sit on their hands until they are faced with a crisis situation rather than making even the slightest effort to avert the crisis.  As a result the cost to society will probably be many times more than it would have been if appropriate action had been taken earlier.


I keep telling people here to study history - there is nothing new in this world.

What you describe above is exactly what happened in the 1970's in the UK if you substitute 'Acid Rain' for 'Global Warming'.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Sparrow, global warming and pollution are not related. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous. Trees need it to breathe, I think.

Certain measures advocated by the zealots should be enacted regardless of the truth of Evil Capitalism Killing Us All (more energy efficient devices, using renewables where applicable etc).


----------



## Dave

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.

Increased Carbon Dioxide levels do make plants grow faster and give better crop yields but that does not stop it being a pollutant, just as people grow flowering Daisies and Buttercups but they can still be weeds if they are in your lawn.


----------



## thaddeus6th

That's a rather broad definition of the term. We aren't introducing carbon dioxide, anyway, and it's possible for any substance to exist in excess (pure oxygen, for example, is fatal).


----------



## Ursa major

An interesting development. (Well, the first bit of it, anyway.) 
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian​


----------



## skeptical

Big Teddy

The bogus email in the latter part of your reference was truly amusing.

Just for the record, and for those who like to believe in secret conspiracies, research shows the following rule:

*As a broad average, with lots of minor exceptions, the maximum number of members a conspiracy may contain without a more than 50% risk of the conspiracy being betrayed is 7.    *

This research was done in relation to competitors price fixing.  However, it seems to have application to all conspiracies, given a reasonably large margin of error.  Betrayal may occur in a conspiracy of 2, or non betrayal in a conspiracy of 20.   However, conspiracies of thousands are impossible, since whistle blowers will pop out of the woodwork all over the damn joint.

Two examples :
1.  OPEC.   This is a conspiracy to push the price of oil up.   Not a secret, but still a conspiracy.    It fails on a regular basis because there are more than 7 members.
2.   The Mafia.   This is definitely a secret conspiracy, conspiring to keep the details of people and operations hidden.   However, there are a lot more than 7 members, and in spite of the rather powerful incentive scheme (squeal and we will kill you), it has been betrayed on many occasions.

So about a global warming conspiracy????
Impossible, since there are too many people involved.


----------



## Drachir

There is also a complete lack of a motive for a global warming conspiracy.  What would anyone have to gain from getting the world to spend trillions on measures like carbon capture?  I will admit it might make a few bucks for the advocates and designers of solar and wind power, but since these people number in the thousands it would be rather difficult for them to get together and enact a coherent strategy, unlike big oil, big coal, or the nuclear power industry, all of which are quite happy to lie whenever it suits them.


----------



## Hilarious Joke

Good point Drachir. The very fact that there is a global awareness of climate change is testament to the seriousness of the threat - despite massively wealthy and influential oil and coal companies with their lobbying and money to burn; the message has still gotten through.


----------



## Wiglaf

Drachir said:


> There is also a complete lack of a motive for a global warming conspiracy.  What would anyone have to gain from getting the world to spend trillions on measures like carbon capture?  I will admit it might make a few bucks for the advocates and designers of solar and wind power, but since these people number in the thousands it would be rather difficult for them to get together and enact a coherent strategy, unlike big oil, big coal, or the nuclear power industry, all of which are quite happy to lie whenever it suits them.


Breathing and farting produce greenhouse gases.  Transportation, agriculture, and energy production are intertwined with greenhouse emissions.  Regulating greenhouse gases gives one control over every aspect of the economy.  If you also control healthcare, you control everything. 
I am not saying that global warming does not exist or that there is a conspiracy, just that there is a reason to push for control of greenhouse gases:  absolute power.  More likely is the possibility of governments using it to increase their control and power without actually reducing emissions.
Oh, why is nuclear a dead end?  It is well suited for base loads and it isn't as if we have any other options for that purpose as of yet.


----------



## Dave

There is certainly no conspiracy, but there are some politicians rubbing their hands together because, while no one likes taxes, if they call it a 'green tax' a majority of people will find it more acceptable.

Unfortunately, if you want to make taxes change a market, you would need to make tax cuts as well, to make the overall burden tax neutral. What I mean is that if the idea behind a tax is to get people out of cars and into public transport, you need to subsidise public transport while putting up petrol duty and car taxes. You also need to improve public transport. Otherwise a 'green tax' is just another tax.

Most 'green taxes' are no such thing, they are just cash cows for the government, and as people see through this they are turning against the the idea rather than holding the politicians to account.


----------



## Wiglaf

Dave said:


> There is certainly no conspiracy, but there are some politicians rubbing their hands together because, while no one likes taxes, if they call it a 'green tax' a majority of people will find it more acceptable.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to make taxes change a market, you would need to make tax cuts as well, to make the overall burden tax neutral. What I mean is that if the idea behind a tax is to get people out of cars and into public transport, you need to subsidise public transport while putting up petrol duty and car taxes. You also need to improve public transport. Otherwise a 'green tax' is just another tax.
> 
> Most 'green taxes' are no such thing, they are just cash cows for the government, and as people see through this they are turning against the the idea rather than holding the politicians to account.


You are mostly right but subsidizing mass transit is unproductive; you need to change zoning laws to allow the higher population density required for mass transit to work.
Electricity is difficult and I think that the UK government is loony regarding much of their recently suggested ideas.  They are increasing suffering for Britons much more than they are reducing global warming.  (Although I admit that the UK is that only OECD country that reduced emissions in they 90s.)  However, the petrol tax you all complained about last year would be useful in North America.  The key of course would be to make it revenue neutral with a tax credit on income tax.  The average worker pays $520/yr in gas taxes and all workers get $100 less with-held from each weekly check.


----------



## skeptical

While there is no global warming conspiracy, there are definitely global warming extremists.  And like Muslim extremists, they are prepared to use unethical means to attain their goals.   In this case, it does not include murder, but it certainly* does* include lies and exaggerations.  If nothing else, the hackers did the world a favour by showing that many of the claims by global warming alarmists were over the top.

Global warming is real, and requires remedial action.  However, some of the remedial action being proposed is exceedingly dangerous - both to the global economy and hence people's chances of living without hunger and poverty - and also to the environment itself.   For example :  what are the environmental outcomes of squirting a million tonnes of sulfate aerosol into the atmosphere?  Or pumping millions of tonnes of ferrous sulfate into the ocean?   Or putting heat reflecting mirrors into orbit? Or dumping millions of tonnes of ground up limestone into the ocean?

Or for that matter, what are the outcomes of changing highly productive agricultural practices to less productive ones to save greenhouse gases?   Obviously, hunger and poverty.

The last thing the world needs is a bunch of fanatics delivering exaggerated views to stimulate the world into precipitate and reckless action.


----------



## Vladd67

Dave said:


> There is certainly no conspiracy, but there are some politicians rubbing their hands together because, while no one likes taxes, if they call it a 'green tax' a majority of people will find it more acceptable.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you want to make taxes change a market, you would need to make tax cuts as well, to make the overall burden tax neutral. What I mean is that if the idea behind a tax is to get people out of cars and into public transport, you need to subsidise public transport while putting up petrol duty and car taxes. You also need to improve public transport. Otherwise a 'green tax' is just another tax.
> 
> Most 'green taxes' are no such thing, they are just cash cows for the government, and as people see through this they are turning against the the idea rather than holding the politicians to account.


A recent example IIRC was another tax on air travel which Darling announced as a tax to help the environment, however he recently came clean and admitted the tax was actually to help pay for the recent banks bailout. This is typical of politicians and their loose-leaf attitude to truth and honesty.


----------



## mygoditsraining

Nice comment/summation of other comments piece over at Futurismic.

Those hacked climate e-mails: Good scientists, poor conspirators | Blog | Futurismic

For those disinclined to following the link, here's the take on things from RealClimate; I doubt I could have put it better.


> *More interesting is what is not contained in the emails*. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and *no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords*. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
> 
> Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; *scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense*. None of this should be shocking.


----------



## Ursa major

What the UEA emails (or the few examples from them that I've seen) show is that scientists are human. More particularly, they are prone to the usual human failings. While some people love to be mavericks, others love to be part of the herd (the winning herd, that is). As I've probably mentioned elsewhere, programmers (yes, they are human) can become attached to their buggy code (and all code of any length has bugs); _some_ of they can be affronted if you question their work, and may seem more interested in seeking satisfaction for the "insult" than in investigating the bug (at least in "public").

None of the above suggests that AGW (which ought to be ACC, surely) is not happening, but it does explain why _some_ AGW supporters want to batter down the opposition (often playing the man, not the ball). The maverick tendency also explains the actions of _some_ of those who doubt AGW.


Given this, we have to be sure about the data and the processes through which it becomes (we should hope) information. If someone has a real doubt about some aspects of the science, the correct response is not to shout "Denier" and to quote the (irrelevant**) unanimity of the scientific community. Too much is at stake to run policy on playground name-calling. If there are problems with the climate models, they need to be fixed. If real world data does not match the models, there's no use pretending that the data is wrong.

If AGW really exists, doing nothing about it may cost us a fortune and many lives; if it proves to be an artefact, but we spend trillions on combatting it, we may suffer economic consequences (which could also lead to loss of life amongst the economically vulnerable).



** - It's irrelevant because science is not democracy; even if we were all brainwashed into believing that the Earth is the centre of everything - solar system, galaxy, universe - it wouldn't be so in reality.


----------



## Sephiroth

Ursa, I agree with all of that.  


I'm not sure that we have the opportunity to wait for a definitive answer before taking certain precautionary measures.  I think that the most sensible option for now is to try and steer some kind of 'middle course', which gives us the opportunity to swing one way or the other as the evidence becomes clearer.  

Doing nothing at all could leave us in a very sticky situation if any of the more extreme climate scenarios come to pass.  By the same token, expending vast amounts of money and resources to combat a serious problem before we are sure of its severity could inflict (or increase) hardship on some of the people who least 'deserve' it.


It's a shame that so many people seem to have invested in an 'all or nothing' stance, one way or the other.


----------



## Ursa major

I agree that there's no point in waiting for evey last f to be crossed and j to be dotted. (If we did that, we might as well not bother even doing the research, as there will always be anomalies.)

But we also need someone to get a grip on the side issues (by which I mean the opponent-baiting) _and_ the problems with the science. If a problem is so important that its solution is to change the way we live, it shouldn't be too much to ask that those whose work is the basis of the change act like proper grown-ups.




Sephiroth said:


> It's a shame that so many people seem to have invested in an 'all or nothing' stance, one way or the other.


Humans, eh? 

But scientists, of all people, ought to know better: just look at how huge areas of science have been created out of niggling doubts about long-held theories, including those that seemed to work almost perfectly in the real world.


----------



## Sephiroth

Absolutely.  Dogma in everyday life is frustrating enough.  Dogma in science is a cardinal sin (so to speak).  Unfortunately, the history of science is littered with examples like this, where proponents of one theory, or one scientific discipline, develop a very 'unscientific' attachment to their ideas, and engage in vitriolic squabbles with their rivals that often descend to the level of ad hominem.

The scientific method is honest and disinterested.  Those whose job is to employ it are often less so.   

Humans, indeed.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

In lighter news, on that very site which Vlad first linked to about this, we at the mighty Chronicles get a mention as, and I gleefully quote, "there we see the voice of the libtard, warmist community" in a post by the article's author.

No such thing as bad publicity I suppose


----------



## Ursa major

So James Delingpole visits here, does he?

(To be fair, he'd only seen the first post in this thread when he made that comment.)


----------



## Dave

Winters_Sorrow said:


> In lighter news, on that very site which Vlad first linked to about this, we at the mighty Chronicles get a mention as, and I gleefully quote, "there we see the voice of the libtard, warmist community" in a post by the article's author.
> 
> No such thing as bad publicity I suppose


No, I guess we must have finally made it when quoted by James Delingpole "a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything." 

Unfortunately, I cannot claim to be right about everything and I had to look up the word 'libtard' on the Urban dictionary. Apparently, we are a cross between libertarians and retards! Unfortunately, our own rules here, which would have already banned him, prevent my reply.


----------



## Ursa major

And I don't recall the election where Vladd was chosen as our authentic voice. As in many of the books we read, he's only one (valuable) POV amongst many.

(_Our_ JDP would know that.)


----------



## Dave

Except that I completely agree with Vladd67 about it being a sloppy headline for a journalist. Unfortunately it has now become the de rigour expression for the email leak event. I expect that a Google search for "climategate" brings him up as number one and a few days ago also brought us up on the first page, whereas now we are several pages down.


----------



## Vladd67

Vent my spleen? I'm sorry but did I hurt the poor boys feelings by just putting forward a mild criticism of his writing style? Honestly if that put his nose out of joint then maybe he is in the wrong line of work. I'm sure people here have seen me comment in a way that would be nearer in description to venting my spleen nay I could even say rant. Interesting how he instantly took me for a 'warmist' what ever that is. I don't know what you all think but I was attempting a neutral line, I just drew attention to his article to some people who may not have seen it and asked for comments. I can't help it if ....gate just annoys me. Oh thanks for the valuable tag Ursa


----------



## Vladd67

Since when has libertarian been an insult?


----------



## Sparrow

Here in America, a _Libertarian_ is a Conservative Republican who doesn't pay taxes and belongs to a quasi militia group.  Always white, often trailer trash, and without a thread of political power they are not taken seriously by either the Right or the Left.
And he probably meant Liberal-Retard, not Libertarian-Retard.

So I reckon Delingpole sees Obama as "horribly reminiscent" of Tony Blair?

Does he now.

Who did Bush remind him of?


----------



## Drachir

Wiglaf said:


> Breathing and farting produce greenhouse gases.  Transportation, agriculture, and energy production are intertwined with greenhouse emissions.  Regulating greenhouse gases gives one control over every aspect of the economy.  If you also control healthcare, you control everything.
> I am not saying that global warming does not exist or that there is a conspiracy, just that there is a reason to push for control of greenhouse gases:  absolute power.  More likely is the possibility of governments using it to increase their control and power without actually reducing emissions.
> Oh, why is nuclear a dead end?  It is well suited for base loads and it isn't as if we have any other options for that purpose as of yet.



I see little evidence that those who advocate more wind and solar energy want more political power.  On the contrary, green sources of energy are so diverse as to diffuse political and economic power rather than concentrate it.  If you are into conspiracy theories you need look no farther than the concentration of power in the oil industry and the billions it spends worldwide to buy politicians.  
As for health care there is much more danger from the giant insurance companies that control the US health care industry that there is from any public option - or are you suggesting against all evidence that those nations with public health care systems have used the system to enslave their populations?


----------



## skeptical

For those interested here is the _New Scientist_ take on 'climategate'.
Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics - environment - 24 November 2009 - New Scientist

It appears that the worst part of the revealed information is the extreme attempts by global warming enthusiasts to suppress the findings of those who present a more sceptical approach.  Scientific papers that did not support the more alarmist approach were subject to attempts at preventing publication by those who wanted the scarier story told.


----------



## Brian G Turner

What people don't seem to realise is that research results are often "fixed" in some way.

What's interesting about the hack attack reports is that at no point has any evidence been provided that climate change is some kind of conspiracy. Instead we get vague mentions of data being manipulated - which, seriously, happens across the fields of science, some more than others.

The cigarette companies have been shown to have infiltrated research in the 1950's in order to suppress results that would have otherwise proven smoking created real health problems.

As for climate change - I was reading New Scientist in the 1990's and it was a science issue then - not so much in the public eye. There was no argument - it was happening, it was simply a case of the exact details of the forecasting being open to interpretation.

Then Kyoto came, the US was pressured into signing up - and, what a surprise, suddenly a deluge of "climate change sceptics" suddenly erupt from the largest polluting largest oil consuming largest consumer economy in the world. No coincidence, of course, that the very people most responsible for driving climate change, with the most money to fight the claims, suddenly gets involved at the same time as sceptics of climate change become the high orators of gossip column society.

Funny how no one accused climate science of being hijacked by wackos and frauds over CFC's - but then again, there was less money in those.

As for the Telegraph write up - he presents himself as a troll, so best treated as one.


----------



## skeptical

Brian

It is not a case of conspiracy, or telling untruths. It is more a case of extremism versus moderation.

Sadly, in every political movement, there are extremists, and acting against climate change is a political movement. The good scientists, who present all the data, in an objective manner, are to be commended. However, there are others who present interpretations of the data, slanted towards the most extreme and scarey approach.

For example ; the IPCC predict a sea level rise of 300mm to 1000 mm over 100 years. The much more extreme climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, predicts 5 metres. 300 to 1000 mm is a rise that will cause a small amount of damage, but is manageable. 5 metres, though, is a disaster. There is little or no good science to back up a 5 metre prediction, so why make it? Answer : to arouse fear.

The _New Scientist_ article suggests that 'climategate' is mostly about unethical methods being used to suppress opposing views. This is, once more, what we expect from extremists.

We do not expect this sort of behaviour from scientists. However, they are human also. Dr. Stephen Schneider, who I think is now retired, is a climate change campaigner of long standing. He was once interviewed on TV, and revealed that he sometimes deliberately exaggerated the situation to achieve the results he wanted. This is normal and human, but again, lousy science.


----------



## K. Riehl

The big problem I see  from this whole affair is that we are talking about the data and prediction models that the IPCC is using to make recommendations to governments that will result in hundreds of Billions of $ in costs.

For years scientists have asked for the raw data to examine and test for themselves and this group has stonewalled, deleted data, knowingly changed data, and deliberately modified the data to fit their models. 

I don't see where people can just poo-poo this when we are talking about a large percentage of the surface temperature data collected around the world that passed through these guys hands. 

I think the biggest disservice is that if we had the raw data and everyone had a chance to test it then it might have made the argument _stronger_ for global warming, but now I have to view any of the claims by these scientists as politics and not science.

I can't ever trust anything they claim or even what the associated organizations may claim in the future. If there isn't 100% transparency in the data then I cannot give any credence to the results.


----------



## BookStop

No Moods, Ads or Cutesy ******* Icons (Re-reloaded) » Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.

this is a pretty entertaining blog read that makes a lot of sense (concerning the climate and scientists views vs the 'leak' of emails)


----------



## Ursa major

One of those at the centre of the story has temporarily stood down:


> The research director at the centre of a row over climate change data said he would stand down from the post while there is an independent review.


BBC News - Scientist in climate change data row steps down​


----------



## Chinook

thaddeus6th said:


> Sparrow, global warming and pollution are not related. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous. Trees need it to breathe, I think.
> 
> Certain measures advocated by the zealots should be enacted regardless of the truth of Evil Capitalism Killing Us All (more energy efficient devices, using renewables where applicable etc).



First of all - There is a lot of hot air coming out of that columnist's mouth. That's for sure. 

And, since Sparrow is not on right now, I'll clear this up a little for you. Pollution is anything that is added to nature that doesn't belong there. In this case, it's a matter of _how much_ belongs there. Something doesn't have to be "poisonous" to be a pollutant, although there are a lot more poisonous gases around now as well. It's just that carbon-dioxide is by far the biggest cause of global warming. Here are the statistics on America's "donation". Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually. 

If you take the time to understand how global warming works, you would understand why increased levels of carbon-dioxide are not a good thing. When the suns rays penetrate the layers of the atmosphere several types of harmful radiation are "filtered out" by the upper layers of the atmosphere. The heat that does get through, is absorbed to some degree (no pun intended) by the Earth's surface. But a lot of it "radiates" back out into space, mostly at night. Carbon-dioxide tends to float up to the upper part of the "troposphere" (the layer of atmosphere that we live and breathe in) increased levels of carbon-dioxide block these rays so they can't escape from the lower atmosphere like they used to 100 years ago. There are other factors as well - The bottom of the planet is "tilted" toward the sun more than the top (23.5 degrees to be exact), so most of Antarctica faces the sun. Being white, it reflects the sun's rays better than the other surfaces of the planet. If it melts (which it is) we are in deep trouble (pun intended). Those rays will be absorbed by the water, and fish will start dying first. Care to look up how much of the world's population lives on fish? Not to mention the stench from things dying all over the planet. It's a runaway process, and you can never come back if you pass the turning point (and we are fast approaching it). If you want to know more specifics, there are plenty of sources of this information on the web.  


from: NRDC: Global Warming Basics

*Is there really cause for serious concern?*

Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:


Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

 *What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?*

	The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we (they) produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.

*How can we cut global warming pollution?*

	It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.


----------



## Drachir

Just out of curiosity just how many climatologists were involved in this so-called cover up?  It seems to me that we are talking about a very small number of British scientists.  Does this include any of the tens of thousands of climatologists in countries like Japan, Germany, the USA, Canada, Australia, and so on; most of whom support the idea that climate change is occurring?


----------



## Ursa major

For those of us not up to speed on either the science or the organisational arrangements involved, it's really hard to work out the significance of this stuff.

So when I read statements such as


> Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
> 
> It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.


(from Climate change data dumped - Times Online), I really don't know what to think. Does it mean that without polling the original sources, a copy of the raw data will not be available for a while? Does it mean that measurements made by the UEA has been lost forever? If there has been a real loss, it is impossible to know whether mistakes were made in the original processing. (Remember, I'm not a skeptic here, but I can see how this sort of thing can be problematic.)

The article goes on:


> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.


Note that this dumping appears to have occured some time ago, in the 1980s, before Prof. Phil Jones took over, so this doesn't look like a cover up.


----------



## jojajihisc

thaddeus6th said:


> That's a rather broad definition of the term. *We aren't introducing carbon dioxide*, anyway, and it's possible for any substance to exist in excess (pure oxygen, for example, is fatal).



Are you serious? What do you think comes out of a coal power plant? Automobiles?

1. Strange the author apparently wants to be taken seriously yet his little bio reads... 





> James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.



He probably thought that was just too funny not to print.

2. I don't follow the change in narrator mode in the first sentence. Maybe something is lost in translation.

3. He admits the absurdity of the title deep into the article.



> I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.



 The "final nail?" What were all the other "nails?"


----------



## Chinook

> Are you serious? What do you think comes out of a coal power plant? Automobiles?


My sentiments exactly. 


Also there is no such word as "Anthropenic", unless of course the author is referring to his ancient member. (sorry, couldn't resist ).


----------



## Tillane

jojajihisc said:


> The "final nail?" What were all the other "nails?"


Where was the coffin?  The booking at the crem?  The admission that the patient was ill, let alone dead?  From what I can see, the patient is in rude health and has barely complained of a sniffle...


----------



## jojajihisc

Tillane said:


> Where was the coffin?  The booking at the crem?  The admission that the patient was ill, let alone dead?  From what I can see, the patient is in rude health and has barely complained of a sniffle...



  No doubt.


----------



## ktabic

Ursa major said:


> Does it mean that measurements made by the UEA has been lost forever?


Hopefully not, since it should be able to gather all the original data from the original sources, as long as the original sources still have the raw data. So it should be possible to build the raw data again. But only if CRU or the various original data providors have kept a list of the source locations.



Ursa major said:


> Note that this dumping appears to have occured some time ago, in the 1980s, before Prof. Phil Jones took over, so this doesn't look like a cover up.


I personally call smelly bovine waste product
Prof Jones has been receiving requests for that data for years. He complains about it in the emails, accusing the requesters of trying to make him waste time on the requests and not his research. And then there is the FOIA requests, which he keeps refusing for various reasons, until finally he gets one he can't refuse because the requester (iirc it was either Roger Pielke or Ross McKitrick) meet all the conditions that Jones had put down. Only then did it turn out the data had been deleted way back in the '80s. Presumably the data from the 90's and 00's, which hasn't been released either AFAIK, was also deleted in the 80's?
Why didn't Jones say that in the first place? It would have stopped all the time-wasting request Jones complained about. Couple all that with his own statement that he would rather commit a criminal act by deleting data then give it out, and I find it very suspect.

Of course, UEA has now agreed to release all the data. Will be interesting if it turns out there really is data from the 80's in there.



jojajihisc said:


> The "final nail?" What were all the other "nails?"


Definitely not the final nail. There are more coming to light now.
NZ has just found their temperature record has been modified by the compilers. 
The GISS record has apparently stopped using 90% of the thermometers they used to include, and didn't bother telling anyone.
The US meteorological stations are now in a dismal state with some people estimating 80% of them no longer meet the basic requirements. This one has been going on for a while but hasn't formally been completed AFAIK


----------



## Chinook

This is taken from the article:



> "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.



So your allegations about Jones fall by the wayside. 



> He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."



Notice the sentence fragment "one of the main pieces of evidence..."
So, how many pieces are there? 

http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/physicalscience/reader_turneretal.pdf
Climate change - causes and effects - British Antarctic Survey
Greenhouse: questions and answers
Straight Talk About Climate Change
Consequences (vol. 1, No. 1) - Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century
Climate Change: News
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises
New Antarctic Ice Core Data
'The World Wants a Real Deal' - Global Day of Action | TckTckTck

I could keep going, and going, and going like our cute little battery operated  bunny. A person is only going to believe what they want to believe regardless of how much overwhelming proof there is to the contrary. The problem is, that it isn't us that will pay for the oversight, it will be our children, and their children, and their children (if children can survive by then).


----------



## Drachir

The climate debate reminds me a good deal of the Titanic rushing across the North Atlantic with the captain muttering to himself "So far so good."  It seems to me quite obvious that if climate change is not yet happening it soon will be; and any efforts to head it off or reduce it would be money well-spent.


----------



## Dave

Drachir said:


> The climate debate reminds me a good deal of the Titanic rushing across the North Atlantic with the captain muttering to himself "So far so good."  It seems to me quite obvious that if climate change is not yet happening it soon will be; and any efforts to head it off or reduce it would be money well-spent.


I agree with you Drachir, however, I have spent time listening to the other side of the argument. We must indeed be the "warmists" here that Richard Delingpole accused us of, since no one else has posted it.

Compared with 20 or 30 years ago, very few people now deny Climate Change is happening, though most do not like to use the words "Global Warming". Their argument runs that "Climate Change has always happened, it is a perfectly natural process; it is not caused by Man, and Man cannot stop it happening. Temperatures have always gone up and down and this is just the same. We shouldn't waste money on trying to prevent it because it is like trying to stop the tide coming in."

While a rise in global temperatures is easy to prove, or an increase in unusual weather patterns or weather events, proving with certainty that it is due to the activity of Man is nigh impossible. This is how it has now become a matter of faith and politics rather than one of science. 

To me, those that deny that Global Warming is not man-made smack of those who deny Evolution. There is the same goal-post moving of the proof required.

Accurate measurements of temperature and rainfall only exist for about 200 years. Measurements taken with different kinds of equipment are not comparable unless figures are adjusted to match. Is this manipulation of the figures a "trick" or absolutely necessary to have a large enough sample size going back further into the past and from more distant parts of the world?

We all know why this story has been broken right now. There is a talk-shop next week that will make some bold statements of intent and then fail to follow through on any of them afterwards. If Climate Change is due to the activity of Man the promises made next week are not going to prevent it, the best we could hope for now is that it won't be quite as bad. But do we really want to bury our heads in the sand instead and say there is nothing that can be done? What are our great grandchildren are going to say when they look back at us?

Anyhow, even if Climate Change is not man-made, the Stern Report sets out some fairly stark consequences for the world, and we need to take some urgent actions to mitigate those consequences.


----------



## ktabic

Dave said:


> While a rise in global temperatures is easy to prove



Really?
To quote a Prof. Jones (Jan 2009):


> I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020


That would put them roughly back at the start of the warming phase of an apparent decadel-long warming/cooling cycle that appears if you look at the alternating claims of warming and cooling over the last 120 years or so.

To quote Trenberth (Oct 2009) (also from the climategate emails)


> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.


That sounds like the people who have been claiming massive warming, every year for years are having problems finding the very warming they say has happened.


----------



## Werewoman

Ah, Dave, the voice of reason. The earth is a living thing, and all living things change in the course of their lifetime. While I have no doubt our presence here, as well as that of our fellow inhabitants (plants, animals, etc.) has certain effects, the earth has the ability, as do we, to heal itself. What we do to each other in our zeal to be right, i.e. human, is my concern. EVERYTHING we produce and discard has the potential to damage the planet and thus ourselves. Even recycling has it's terrestrial impact, so I think the best we all can hope to achieve is to look to ourselves to do what we can in our everyday lives as our own conscience dictates. 

I personally hate that we produce and purchase mass quantities of electronic gadgetry, then simply discard it once it is no longer useful. The chemicals and other materials used to produce these devices are probably highly toxic yet how many of us threw away our portable CD players when MP3's first came out? I could go on, but you get the idea.

And my point is simply this, that we ALL contribute to the health and wealth of this planet, and if history repeats itself, as it is wont to do, then it may all be a moot point anyway because there are too many unknowns in this universe. So I think we all may try to consume less and contribute more in whatever fashion our hearts tell us is the right thing to do.


----------



## JDP

I believe that that there are dual causes behind AGW over the last 157 years. Basically, it's caused by an increase in human body heat; firstly from the exuberant games of children made well at St Ormond Street Childrens' Hospital and, secondly, from rowers competing in (and practicing for) the annual Yale-Harvard boat race.

It's unlikely we're going to enjoy an epiphany any time soon and have universal agreement, but we shouldn't need a boogeyman to scare us (as a species) into stopping doing things that we already know aren't sensible. Consuming finite resources without a care for the longview... spewing pollutants into our environment*... destroying the planet's natural habitats... these are NEVER GOING TO BE A GOOD IDEA. EVER. SERIOUSLY. FACT.

We're careening along a mountain road at 200mph arguing about which bend we're gonna crash out on, when we should just be taking our foot off the gas.

Each individual, and each country, should do what they can within their own means. If we can all agree about that, then so much the better. I understand that some will have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo but, IMO, to carry on as we are is mortal hubris, AGW or no.

* as yet, we've still only got the one to play with.


----------



## Moonbat

> The earth is a living thing


 
Can the Earth actually be said to be alive? Surely the Earth has living things living on it, but it itself isn't living, no more than Mars or Venus or the Sun.


----------



## Ursa major

The Earth, when seen as a ball of rock/metal/whatever, is not a living thing. But that is only a small part of what we experience on its surface; the "ball" provides things like our orbit around the Sun and our gravity. (Oh and the odd earthquake to remind us that it's there).

What we experience as the Earth - the totality of the Earth - is a highly complex system, which does have living components. These are vital in creating the environment which we need to live (and which do not exist on Mars, Venus, etc.).

So the Earth that we know is, in a sense, alive. (And if humans were the only living things on the planet, we'd have to create our own life support).


----------



## skeptical

As I understand it, warming has slowed over the past three or so years.   Except at the poles, where ice is still melting.

This is not actually hard to explain.   We are just coming out of the nadir of a sunspot cycle, and we are in the middle of a series of cycles in which sunspot activity is lower than normal.  This explains why air temperatures are not warming as quickly.

Ice melt at the poles is largely a result of warming seas, and the sea has a long thermal lag.   So the lower atmospheric warming takes a little while to transfer to the sea.

However, none of this changes the greenhouse gas situation.   Over the next few years, we will move towards a sunspot cycle maximum.  It will probably not be particularly great since the last couple of cycles have been low, and the current one shows signs of being low also.   This will inhibit warming, and hopefully keep it below the rather pessimistic forecasts of many global warming enthusiasts.

This will give humanity a bit of time to introduce changes to reduce greenhouse gases.  The big problem will be if the sunspot cycles move once more towards strong sunspot activity.  This, we cannot predict.

Note :  Sunspot activity is a proxy for a range of solar activities.  Sunspots themselves are not significant, but at times of high sunspot activity we also get :
- Higher solar irradance
- Stronger solar magnetic fields, which envelop the Earth, diverting cosmic rays
- More ultra violet in the solar spectrum
- Fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth means less cloud formation, and more lightning strikes.


----------



## Werewoman

Moonbat said:


> Can the Earth actually be said to be alive? Surely the Earth has living things living on it, but it itself isn't living, no more than Mars or Venus or the Sun.


 
I was speaking metaphorically, Moonbat. The symbiosis required for the sustenance provided by the earth is what I was referring to in my post. I was merely thinking in terms explained to me by my wiccan daughter, that's all.


----------



## Dave

Werewoman - Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Is that what you meant?



Moonbat said:


> Can the Earth actually be said to be alive? Surely the Earth has living things living on it, but it itself isn't living, no more than Mars or Venus or the Sun.


The Soil of the Earth is quite different to Mars or Venus. It isn't a living organism as one is defined, but as an ecosystem it could be considered to be very alive. 

In a mere handful of a typical, garden soil, there are billions to hundreds of billions of soil micro-organisms. The reason that archaeological finds are always buried is because worms constantly turn over the soil. They consume their own body weight in soil and dead plants in one day. They then excrete equivalent to their own body weight daily in castings. 

Anyway, I think I digress.


----------



## Werewoman

Dave said:


> Werewoman - Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Is that what you meant?


 
Well, I didn't know it had a name, or was considered a hypothesis, but yes, that's the gist of it. I suppose spiritual would be a better word than metaphorical. I'm not particularly religious, but I have experienced many instances where I sense an 'essence' that can't be seen by one's eyes. I can't explain it very well, I'm afraid. All I know is that when I am upset or things are not going well, nature soothes me as no drug or person can, and it's because I feel a peaceful presence in the rocks, trees, plants and animals around me that seems to radiate a calming presence that I think of as the manifestation of the earth's life force. 

Gawd, I sound like an airhead, don't I? LOL!

Suffice to say it's one of those things I think you may have to experience to understand. I've been this way my whole life so I have no concept of NOT being able to experience it. Does that make sense?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Nope Were, you sound pretty cool actually. I bet we'd get along very well IRL.....but that could be because we are both crazy.....


----------



## Werewoman

Crazy? I'm crazy? Oh yes, I remember now. You're right. Certifiably, actually. 

And I agree we would be great together IRL, though it's just as well we live in different parts of the continent because I'm even more mischievous in real life than I am here, so Chronic Friends it is for now, though there's still hope - for us at least though the rest of the world may not agree - that I may wind up in your neck of the woods. I never stay in one place for very long, and that's the way I like it.


----------



## Drachir

Here is a bit more on the topic.  
As Joe Rogan says: "I like to believe in stuff that people a lot smarter than me have through about for years."  

Global-warming science defended


----------



## thaddeus6th

Some scientists believing something doesn't mean I, even without a scientist's brain to use, am going to suspend my critical thinking and let a scientist decide for me. A few decades ago scientists were concerned about global cooling.


----------



## jojajihisc

thaddeus6th said:


> Some scientists believing something doesn't mean I, even without a scientist's brain to use, am going to suspend my critical thinking and let a scientist decide for me. A few decades ago scientists were concerned about global cooling.



The quote that still baffles me.



> We aren't introducing carbon dioxide, anyway,



Glad to hear you're thinking critically about it. Something else to think critically about. 

1.) What gases are emitted from a coal power plant then? 
2.) What gases are coming out of your car's tailpipe?


----------



## thaddeus6th

Was the second quote mine?

For your questions:
1) I'm going to guess carbon dioxide.
2) None. I have no car.

Now some for you:
1) The greenhouse gas theory is based upon sound, repeated experiments in a small, closed environment. Does that necessarily mean it is applicable to a planet?
2) What proportion of greenhouse gas is man-made carbon dioxide, and what proportion is cow-made methane and ocean-made water vapour?
3) Why did the Earth heat up during the Middle Ages and (roughly) the time Claudius was emperor? Was it because of coal power stations?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Werewoman said:


> Crazy? I'm crazy? Oh yes, I remember now. You're right. Certifiably, actually.
> 
> And I agree we would be great together IRL, though it's just as well we live in different parts of the continent because I'm even more mischievous in real life than I am here, so Chronic Friends it is for now, though there's still hope - for us at least though the rest of the world may not agree - that I may wind up in your neck of the woods. I never stay in one place for very long, and that's the way I like it.



That's OK. I talk a lot less IRL than I do on the net. Im really good at typing out what I want to get across but really bad at actually making words come out of my mouth. 

And back OT:

I am not a person that is against the environment. I am all for sustainable green production and green industry. 

However, what people have to realize is that the intermittent time when green technology is new and very expensive will have drastic consequences on the economy that will last until viable training and education for labor alternatives meet the need of the new green labor industry.

So, in the mean time, we are going to have families without food and shelter.

This has happened in the timber industry (mainly Oregon) and the metal industry (as plastics took over). 

So yes, please, lets make the world a better place. Lets clean up our earth. But in the mean time, lets keep crime and depression and poverty in our industrialized nations down by offering retraining, reeducation, and assist families with housing and food---not just for the poverty families, but those who will lose or have lost their livelihoods as the economy moves away from industry and towards a green environment.


----------



## jojajihisc

thaddeus6th said:


> Was the second quote mine?



Uh, yah. See page 1 of this thread.



thaddeus6th said:


> That's a rather broad definition of the term. We aren't introducing carbon dioxide, anyway, and it's possible for any substance to exist in excess (pure oxygen, for example, is fatal).





thaddeus6th said:


> For your questions:
> 2) None. I have no car.



Oh, sorry I'll rephrase. How about is carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles?



thaddeus6th said:


> Now some for you:
> 1) The greenhouse gas theory is based upon sound, repeated experiments in a small, closed environment. Does that necessarily mean it is applicable to a planet?
> 2) What proportion of greenhouse gas is man-made carbon dioxide, and what proportion is cow-made methane and ocean-made water vapour?
> 3) Why did the Earth heat up during the Middle Ages and (roughly) the time Claudius was emperor? Was it because of coal power stations?



1. No not necessarily.
2. I don't know but, again, you said "we aren't introducing carbon dioxide." Not anything about proportions, cows, greenhouse theories etc.
3. I don't know. No they didn't exist back then. Nor does eliminate them as a contributor carbon dioxide in the present.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Actually the earth has natural hot and cold cycles. Humans have lived primarily in the warming up cycle. But there are still poisons in the air.


----------



## Ursa major

I think the issue is that climate science - a very young science** - is being asked to come up with definitive statements that it cannot (hand on heart) really deliver.

And the definitive statements being asked aren't along the lines of:


> How many nice summers will there be in a couple of decades?


they are:


> How long before we reach a tipping point and the Earth's climate spirals out of control?


 
This is not an ordinary question. ("Tell us something we don't know, Ursa?") But it's the type of question, not the scale and impact, to which I'm referring.

If we are asked to consider GM food, many think we ought to be very cautious about its introduction, because we don't fully understand how the mechanism work in the real world, outside the laboratory (although I guess we're finding out more as time passes); caution would suggest holding back.

In the case of climate change, the longer we stand back and wait, the closer any tipping point (should there actually be one) will become and the harder it will be to do anything about it; caution suggests doing something now (if not sooner); caution suggests that we ought not to be too picky about the complex data, the ways we have to handle it - with real data and proxy data having to be combined - the crudeness of the climate models. Only the devil may be in the detail; CO2 may not be the main driver; something else we're doing (something we're not bothered about) could become significant. But even if it isn't - and I'm assuming it isn't - it doesn't help that those who know what little we do know about climate science do not seem to be the best advertisement for the scientific method, with their ad hominem attacks and their need to hold their data close and let few others (and then only the _trusted_ few) see it. This is not the way to gain public confidence, which is one reason why they're losing it.




Another reason is that we have the barely-scientifically illiterate (e.g. politicians) driving the policy. Examples:
Our environment minister was asked on the radio yesterday about population growth. He made the mistake of answering it, saying something along the lines of: well yes, there'll be a third more people in so many decades, but the world economy will have multiplied by some number (I'm sure he mentioned a factor of six!), so it'll be all right. h eprobably thought he was being clever, but I found myself wondering what planet he was living on and what would be fuelling this growth. (I think some of us in the UK would like to know how the UK economy is meant to grow, with or without fossil fuels.)
This morning, some fellow on the radio this morning (discussing this: BBC News - UK aviation 'must be given some growth room') said that we can have more flying about the place as long as we cut back more in other areas (i.e. the non-elective ones: work, heat, the travel needed to support this). Now if the problem is as serious as it's being painted, why not do what we can in the non-elective areas but really crack down on the elective stuff. (Flying six times a year to your second home in another country is not a human right, although you'd be excused for thinking it might be.)
And it also doesn't help when people state that something they cannot possibly know (although they may have a very good idea about it) is "certain". (Personally, I think very few things in any chaotic system are that certain.)


** - Just think what physics and chemistry were like in their very early days: far from having definitive answers. And most chemical reactions (at the level they were being examined in those days) and child's play when compared to any complex and chaotic system, let alone one as complex and chaotic as "the weather".


----------



## skeptical

For thaddeus

Re warmings towards 1000 AD, and until 1940.

These are related to solar activity.   When the sun is most active, as shown by sunspots, the sun's magnetic field stretches out to cover the Earth, and deflects cosmic rays away from the Earth.  Cosmic rays leave showers of charged particles entering the Earth, and these leave traces in ice, which can be measured in ice cores taken from glaciers.   In this way, we can measure cosmic ray flux in the past, and we can calculate from that how active the sun was, any year going back several thousands of years.

The point is that we now know the sun was increasing in activity towards the end of the first millennium, as the Earth warmed.  By 1000 AD, which was the beginning of the Medieval climate optimum (warm time), solar activity was higher than any time in the previous 1000 years.  

Solar activity was at a minimum for the period of 1500 to 1750, which was the Little Ice Age.  Solar activity increased till 1940 which was the second warmest period of the 20th Century.

However, from 1940 to 2000, during which time, the world warmed yet again, solar activity remained stable.  So the warming of the latter half of the 20th Century was unrelated to the cause of warming at the end of the Dark Ages.


----------



## Ursa major

Let me say that I have no idea how reliable** the site to which I'm providing a link is, but I found this particular entry very interesting (and not because of the first comment after the text):
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?​ 
* And wonders how many weather stations are at airport. (Just kidding.) * 




** - I don't know how honest it is, for example.


----------



## Chinook

I would LOL, except I have young children. They are going to see the effects of all of this by the end of their lifetimes, if not sooner. 

So, my question to the naysayers is this: Do you really think that a bunch of people would get together and create a world-wide conspiracy about a global warming trend? 

What would they have to gain from spending all that time and energy gathering data if there wasn't some real reason to be concerned?

If you try to tell me that they are all investors in alternative energy, then I will LOL! (You'll have to prove that one before I'll believe it.)

Hoaxes are quickly debunked in this day and age. (Go to Snopes.com and see for yourself.)


----------



## skeptical

Chinook

There is no conspiracy, but there may be a degree of extremism.   The 'fight' against climate change is a political movement, and all political movements have their extremeists.  Such people exaggerate and distort interpretations to support their political goals.

There is even a TV interview on record with Dr. Stephen Schneider, who admitted deliberately exaggerating findings in order to stimulate anti-global warming action.   He thought this was justified by the intended goal.


----------



## thaddeus6th

The fight for global warming is also political. Green types are looking to stifle industrial growth, and politicians get a bulletproof reason for taxing certain things, plus scientists get a ton of work.

The idea the anti-global warming camp is subjective and driven by self-interest whereas the pro-camp is an objective, righteous cause is nonsense. There are vested interests on both sides.


----------



## Drachir

thaddeus6th said:


> The fight for global warming is also political. Green types are looking to stifle industrial growth, and politicians get a bulletproof reason for taxing certain things, plus scientists get a ton of work.
> 
> The idea the anti-global warming camp is subjective and driven by self-interest whereas the pro-camp is an objective, righteous cause is nonsense. There are vested interests on both sides.




You may be right about Green types  - the question is why are they concerned about global warming?  Surely it can't be just to annoy the rest of us.  Just because an environmental group has political leanings does not mean it is wrong - especially when its opposition is willing to use any lie or political trick to get its way.


----------



## Chinook

thaddeus6th said:


> The fight for global warming is also political. Green types are looking to stifle industrial growth, and politicians get a bulletproof reason for taxing certain things, plus scientists get a ton of work.
> 
> The idea the anti-global warming camp is subjective and driven by self-interest whereas the pro-camp is an objective, righteous cause is nonsense. There are vested interests on both sides.



"Green Types" are not trying to stifle industrial growth unless it is irresponsible about it's waste material. Even then we are not trying to stifle industrial growth. We are trying to stop pollution. The problem is that it is cheaper to go on polluting than to fix the problem, and as far as the politics, there are plenty of politicians on both sides of the issue. It seems as if the politicians who stand for letting the factories go on polluting are typical right-wing" types who care more about money than anything else" types. 

Who cares if 90% of the planet dies later on, as long as we keep making the big bucks right now? That's how they come across to me.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I'm sure the super-greens aren't trying to annoy us, it's just an unfortunate but predictable side-effect. Some (probably most) will genuinely believe in global warming, but don't forget that the green movement is tied in with an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial feeling. The Green Party (UK) wants to prevent an increase in prosperity because it's bad for the environment. This is just the latest and most handy peg to put that sentiment on.

The real problem is for places like India, China and developing nations elsewhere. It's frankly unacceptable to try and tell them they can't have coal-fired power stations because of climate change. Even if I believed in it, I'd realise the reality that the two emerging superpowers aren't going to go without power.

Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.


----------



## Dave

thaddeus6th said:


> Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.


Just because you keep repeating that statement does not make it any more true than it was before. I gave you a dictionary definition of pollution earlier. I understand you do not agree that Carbon Dioxide is harmful to the environment, but one man's noise pollution is also another man's late night party.


----------



## thaddeus6th

"Just because you keep repeating that statement does not make it any more true than it was before."

Likewise global warming.


----------



## Ursa major

Chinook said:


> "Green Types" are not trying to stifle industrial growth unless it is irresponsible about it's waste material. Even then we are not trying to stifle industrial growth.


Almost 100% true; but all political/whatever persuassions have their extremists (of one sort or another). So there are - or were (and I doubt the meme has died out) - those who would call themselves green who seem to hanker after a life of drudgery carrying the water from the well to their makeshift, twig-built home in order to boil up the berries they've gathered, etc. (I always got the impression - when hearing them in interviews - that they'd be the ones running the place and making sure the ordinary folk were keeping to the program.)

I know _you're_ not one of them, by the way, if only because you're using electricity.


----------



## skeptical

Just a comment on pollution for the greens among us.

I hope you are prepared to recognise the progress already made.  Industry in developed countries has already worked on reducing pollution to a degree, and to a success level, that is downright dramatic.

Take London for example.   In the days of Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, London was massively polluted.   Smogs poisoned the air and caused thousands upon thousands of human deaths from respiratory illness.  The Thames was literally poisonous from pollution.

By the latter half of the 20th Century, the smog was gone.  Still not perfect since car exhausts were bad, but the pollution was no longer from industry.   The Thames was so clean that salmon once more swam in its waters.

It is fine to talk of the evils of pollution, but I hope you guys are fair enough to recognise the progress already made.


----------



## Chinook

thaddeus6th said:


> I'm sure the super-greens aren't trying to annoy us, it's just an unfortunate but predictable side-effect. Some (probably most) will genuinely believe in global warming, but don't forget that the green movement is tied in with an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial feeling. The Green Party (UK) wants to prevent an increase in prosperity because it's bad for the environment. This is just the latest and most handy peg to put that sentiment on.
> 
> The real problem is for places like India, China and developing nations elsewhere. It's frankly unacceptable to try and tell them they can't have coal-fired power stations because of climate change. Even if I believed in it, I'd realise the reality that the two emerging superpowers aren't going to go without power.
> 
> Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.



Some folks are annoyed (read _afraid_) that some scientific movement is going to push them from their imaginary cushy little comfort zone, either by cutting into their profits, or just using their tax money for something they refuse to even investigate enough to learn about. Some folks make associations between political factors and scientific findings, and I haven't the slightest notion where their capacity to use reason and logic disappeared to. Perhaps it radiated out into space regardless of all the extra carbon dioxide because it was so thin to begin with, it could easily escape their minds. 

Skeptical - I mentioned the progress being made earlier, but it seemed to make no impression since there were other heated battles going on at the time.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Some folks watched their families become destitute when the logging industry plummeted because of owls and old growth and are now watching the same thing happen to other families as the auto and metal industries plummet as we outsource to countries with lower environmental protection regulations. 

Sustainability and reeduction and retraining and job placement.

Otherwise we are just putting people out of their jobs and homes.

I know this because I have seen it happen. 

Without job restructuring, as several industries plummet with increased environmental regulations they kill homes.

Look at Detroit.


Hey Chinook, let me know when you are willing to take displace timber and metal and auto industry famlies into your home and feed and clothe them. 

Because I don't see any environmentalist doing that. 

When you put the earth before people, you have no people.


----------



## skeptical

DG

As always, you can look at these changes as a disaster or as an opportunity.   The auto industry has an enormous opportunity ahead of it, in that lots of cars will need to be replaced with electric battery operated vehicles.   They can embrace the opportunity and make billions, or they can go all woebegone and fail to make the change.  When they go belly up as a result, they will get precisely zero sympathy from me!


----------



## J-WO

dustinzgirl said:


> Look at Detroit.



OK, as long as I don't have to visit.


----------



## Chinook

dustinzgirl said:


> Hey Chinook, let me know when you are willing to take displace timber and metal and auto industry famlies into your home and feed and clothe them.
> 
> Because I don't see any environmentalist doing that.
> 
> When you put the earth before people, you have no people.



Sure - Send them over. I've got jobs for them too. I'm starting a Solar panel manufacturing company in the near future. But actually I was going to start by employing some_ native _Americans. Talk about being driven out of your homes and driven into destitution. 

By the way, If you put people before the Earth, you also end up with no people. That's because the Earth _supports _the people.


----------



## dustinzgirl

There must be a sustainable economy during the interim---as we switch from industry to green, we have to develop a way of taking care of each other.

In the future.....you say...so in the mean time you'll pay everyone's mortgage, buy them food, and so forth and so on?

My problem is not with the environment. My problem is with people who think that everyone should just give up their jobs and homes and food and college funds now for a better environment 100 years from now, when they have to sleep in a car with their kids tonight and eat at the soup kitchen--if they have the gas to get there--tonight. Not 10 years from now. Not 30 days from now. Now. 

I see absolutely NO reason why we can't provide displaced workers with education and funds to survive so they do not lose their lives. Yes, lets protect the environment. Lets find replacement technologies instead of just moving old poison technology to another country and displacing our own workers. Lets teach our displaced workers how to work in solar plants and ensure their families have homes and food in the mean time. 

I know this is a hard concept to understand. If you are hungry yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the likelihood of being worried about the air quality next month is pretty dang low. 

However, unless you actually live in the Northwest timber industry or the Midwest/East manufacturing industry you really don't care and think that...what was it you said...oh yeah, we are all looking for tax breaks.

Jobless people do not have to file taxes.

So....I don't see how that applies.

The majority of my childhood my family was very, very poor. Quite frankly I blame that on environmentalists who had laws made that prevented the majority of logging. So the logging industry went to the Amazon and Indonesia and China, where there were no laws. So instead of helping create a green industry, all that the environmentalists have done, ever, as far as I am concerned, is keep the world poisoned and upped the national unemployment rate. 

Also, I don't see your crack about native Americans. You know your country isn't all native either, likely you have Roman ancestry if you are in the UK, just from a thousand years ago instead of three hundred.....so.....Also, I am not responsible for the removal of homes and desolation, and I know many Cow Creek Natives and support them fully. By the way, the Cow Creek Native Tribe has BOTH helped to preserve the environment AND create sustainable jobs for natives and non-native Americans through job retraining and sustainable timber initiative support. 

Oh, and unless you live in a house of 100% recycled plastic, its likely that your home was a major factor in the destruction of forests where clear-cutting (the removal of all trees in an area) is not illegal and replanting does not occur because third world nations do not have the same regards for reforestation.

PS: You know that it takes about 30 days for a person to starve to death.

So unless the planet is going Armageddon in 30 days...that last comment was, in my humble opinion, not really logical, since people would starve to death before the planet would implode or explode or whatever it is that the planet is going to do.


----------



## Dave

dustinzgirl said:


> My problem is with people who think that everyone should just give up their jobs and homes and food and college funds now for a better environment 100 years from now, when they have to sleep in a car with their kids tonight and eat at the soup kitchen--if they have the gas to get there--tonight. Not 10 years from now. Not 30 days from now. Now.
> 
> I see absolutely NO reason why we can't provide displaced workers with education and funds to survive so they do not lose their lives. Yes, lets protect the environment. Lets find replacement technologies instead of just moving old poison technology to another country and displacing our own workers. Lets teach our displaced workers how to work in solar plants and ensure their families have homes and food in the mean time.



DG- on the subject of change - Luddite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean that in the original sense of the word, not the pejorative use it has become. What you are really fighting is economics and raw capitalism. Companies that don't change and keep one step ahead of the competition are always going to loose their business elsewhere without any help from governments or greens. 

The idea behind green taxes and stricter controls is to influence the marketplace into producing these new technologies earlier than would be economic otherwise. The problem with Detroit is that the USA lagged behind the rest of the world for too long because your fuel was so cheap no car buyer paid any attention to fuel efficiency. Then there is a recession, people want smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and someone else has them to sell, has been designing them for years. The problem is with the senior management in these car companies. They were Dinosaurs waiting for the meteorite.

As for "moving old poison technology to another country and displacing our own workers," environmentalists actually advocate for giving green technology free so that third world countries miss out the "dirty" step on the ladder. This is opposed on the same grounds, that it gives an unfair advantage to those countries over the old industrial ones, and will lead to a loss of jobs. It becomes a circular argument.

There is little new here, the exact same arguments were made about cleaning up pollution from factory smoke and effluents that skeptical just observed.


skeptical said:


> Take London for example.   In the days of Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, London was massively polluted.   Smogs poisoned the air and caused thousands upon thousands of human deaths from respiratory illness.  The Thames was literally poisonous from pollution.


That didn't change without a fight either. I already gave the example of Acid Rain Pollution in an earlier post in this thread.

There can be sustainable development. There can be technology transfer that is fair to all. There can be an improved environment without damage to the economy and restrictions on growth. It just needs our politicians and industry leaders to be up to the task, (which I'm not sure they are.)


----------



## dustinzgirl

Dave said:


> What you are really fighting is economics and raw capitalism.
> It just needs our politicians and industry leaders to be up to the task, (which I'm not sure they are.)



Thats what I was trying to say. 

My concern, however, is that we very quickly place judgments on people who work in such and such industry without considering their needs for safety and security in life. 

I completely support reducing emissions. Lets do that. But in the mean time, lets make sure that fewer kids have to grow up like I did. 

Real poverty exists in America and in the UK, and it is increasing, and taking away more jobs without replacing them is not helping at all. 

Lets also ensure that our efforts in fixing the environment are not being underminded by underhanded governments who do not have the same restrictions. While we make laws restricting jobs in our homeland to improve it, lets make sure that instead of just MOVING the jobs and MOVING the poison and desolation that we are actually CURING it from a global perspective. 

Those fighting for the environment would have a lot more of my respect if they also fought for sustainable economy. 

Both can coincide. We need action plans that address both. We need smart dudes to say something like:

Hey, we can't let you clear cut that forest anymore. So here is a plan for reforestation. And all the people that lost their jobs from our plan can have free training at our plastics recycling facility. We are also lobbying to make it illegal (or taxed to high hell) to import from countries that do not have the same environmental restrictions as we do. 

I do not see why that is so difficult. 

I mean, if I tell my kids to clean their room, and they put all their garbage in the closet, can I really be mad at them if I didn't tell or teach them how to clean their room and make a rule that they couldn't put crap in the closet? Not really, because I gave them an end but never a means, so that is my responsibility, right? Right.


----------



## Chinook

dustinzgirl said:


> Thats what I was trying to say.
> 
> My concern, however, is that we very quickly place judgments on people who work in such and such industry without considering their needs for safety and security in life.



What if they had a war, and no one showed up? I'm certainly not judging those folks, but armies are made of volunteers. I'll admit that there are some who choose that path because it's better than the future they face if they don't. The point is that if no-one volunteered, the Governments couldn't fight wars with people. The only option left to them would be mass destruction. This world is ruled by violence. We are not out of the dark ages yet, and if people don't wake up and smell enlightenment, we're all going the way of the dinosaur. 

Companies can not pollute the air without willing volunteers. I have been displaced by the economy too. But I made a conscious decision to not contribute to all of the crap that is going on. I got good at what I do, and now I call the shots. I've adapted. That's what I'm asking those displaced folks you're talking about to do. I walk my talk. 




dustinzgirl said:


> I mean, if I tell my kids to clean their room, and they put all their garbage in the closet, can I really be mad at them if I didn't tell or teach them how to clean their room and make a rule that they couldn't put crap in the closet? Not really, because I gave them an end but never a means, so that is my responsibility, right? Right.



Dustin's Girl for president!


----------



## Sparrow

> Dave ~There is little new here, the exact same arguments were made about cleaning up pollution from factory smoke and effluents that skeptical just observed.





It's been going on for much longer than that.

Folks might be surprised that little more than a hundred years ago the average American spent 35%-45% of their income on food.  American agriculture was a parody of the myth, that we had the most productive farms on the planet was a complete lie.  The Federal Govt stepped in with State Govts to see what could be done to drive down food prices, and of course the argument came up that many would lose their jobs... that never happened.. people moved from working in the fields to working in the factories.  A mere 15 years down the road, and many programs (some worked others did not), and the average American would spend 20%-25% on food, freeing up money, resources, and that entrepreneurial spirit to expand, and more importantly at that time, to diversify the economy.  The farmers in this country were not modernizing and it took the Government partnering with them to make positive change.

America has found herself once again in dire straits for lacking the guts to change when change is necessary.  We cannot continue with a Service Oriented Economy. The old rules still apply, you have to build things, you have to manufacture goods for export.  American businesses need to be freed from the responsibility of providing healthcare for their employees and be able to compete on the world stage.

A sustainable economy, what is that?.. somebody give me a concise definition, please!

This is the Free Market, it's suppose to be one of the things we stand for.
We shouldn't be making promises to the poor, opportunity yes, welfare no.  The poor are poor, usually for good reason.


----------



## Chinook

dustinzgirl said:


> I know this is a hard concept to understand. If you are hungry yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the likelihood of being worried about the air quality next month is pretty dang low.
> 
> However, unless you actually live in the Northwest timber industry or the Midwest/East manufacturing industry you really don't care and think that...what was it you said...oh yeah, we are all looking for tax breaks.
> 
> Jobless people do not have to file taxes.
> 
> So....I don't see how that applies.
> 
> The majority of my childhood my family was very, very poor. Quite frankly I blame that on environmentalists who had laws made that prevented the majority of logging. So the logging industry went to the Amazon and Indonesia and China, where there were no laws. So instead of helping create a green industry, all that the environmentalists have done, ever, as far as I am concerned, is keep the world poisoned and upped the national unemployment rate.
> 
> Also, I don't see your crack about native Americans.



DG - I wasn't talking to you when I mentioned avoiding taxes or getting pushed out of one's comfort zone. You might want to look at the Posting that I was quoting before you go off on me. I have been very, very poor too. I understand that a person cannot learn anything if they are starving. I advocate helping these people with the basic necessities so that they can learn new trades, or teach themselves something better. Remember though, that every time someone suggests that the US government help the poor, the republicans go flying off (Into right field, I suppose) and get all upset that their taxes are being used to carry dead weight. 


And, it was not a "crack"" as you put it, about Native Americans. I am dead serious. I will hire them because someone needs to treat them nicely for a change. I'm not just talking about one little tribe here or there. I talking about the whole surviving population of Native Americans. Have you seen how they've been forced to live? Approximately 14 out of 15 of the "Treaties" that the US Government made with any tribe were broken within a few years. If you can remain kind, and truthful in your life regardless of all the injustice, hardship, prejudice, and losses that you suffer, that is a goal worth accomplishing. (IMHO)


----------



## jojajihisc

dustinzgirl said:


> Some folks watched their families become destitute when the logging industry plummeted because of owls and old growth and are now watching the same thing happen to other families as the auto and metal industries plummet as we outsource to countries with lower environmental protection regulations.
> 
> Sustainability and reeduction and retraining and job placement.



It's hard to imagine the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest maintaining the pace it kept up through the better part of the twentieth century. They too should have considered sustainability earlier on. Labor unions also deserve some of the blame because they could have invested in retraining much earlier on and given employees a route into a new line of work. Lack of demand in the construction industry deserves a fair amount of credit for its contraction as well.


----------

