http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M



"A respected British scientist has admitted that emails taken from his inbox, calling into question many of the accepted truths of global warming, were genuine. The documents appear to show scientists are holding back, or ignoring, evidence. One even suggested using a "trick" to hide a trend of falling temperatures"

----------------------------------

"Short version: A large batch of data from one of the world’s leading climate science centers was released on the Internet last week; this includes thousands of emails and other documents that reveal scientists at the center — people who have been intimately involved in the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — may have been manipulating their data, and certainly intended to foil Freedom of Information requests and keep contrarian researchers out of peer-review journals if possible."

Translation: Hackers illegally broke into a server in Britain. Out of 13 years worth of legitimate e-mails from that research unit, they found one e-mail from 1999, with one word in it, that, when taken completely out of context, might give the impression that one person was trying to hide data.

Therefore, all of the data and conclusions regarding climate change must be a lie!

Haven't you conspiracy nutjobs found something else to fixate on? This is getting old.

Haven't you conspiracy nutjobs found something else to fixate on? This is getting old.

Who's the conspiracy theorist?

http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showthread.php?t=19487

Nothing to see here, move along? Conspiracy nutjob label to discredit everything. What a terrific tool!

More and more I'm convinced you are paid to post. Do you work directly for Centcom? Of course, even if you did you could not say so. Is that a variant of the official response sent to you?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

*final nail is wishful thinking on the part of the author

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

anipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you.

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/11/25/more-on-those-climate-emails/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports. Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwWMMz5LLrk

Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.

Video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI



You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.

You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.

This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

You have suspected as much for years.

You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.

You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.

You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.

You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.

You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.

You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.

Your movement had been hijacked.

The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.

Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.

Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.

Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disast

We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.

We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.

We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.

We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.

We now know, in short, that they were lying.

It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.

With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.

Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.

We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.

We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.

In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.

Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.

We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.

We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.

We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.

We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.

Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.

It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.

We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?

For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.

Nothing to see here, move along?Give me ANY research organization's e-mails, uncensored, and I can also cherry pick a couple of phrases out of over a thousand, take them out of context, and add some rabid editorializing to make it sound bad.

It does not mean there is a conspiracy.

It also does not mean the underlying data is incorrect, since the data did not come from that organization.

I certainly never relied on any of their opinions to come to my conclusion. Conspiracy nutjob label to discredit everything. What a terrific tool!Science is the tool.

There is a mountain of data, from many different fields, researchers, and organizations, to support the theory behind global warming.

Where is YOUR data, to rebut that conclusion?

That's right, you don't have any, so YOU have to resort to trying to discredit people to hide the simple fact that you're wrong.

There is one thing you can help me out with. I am still curious as to why the Christians and conspiracy nutjobs have joined forces on this particular topic. It's like some sort of crusade with you people.

I mean, I can understand why you join forces on the health care thing, but why global warming?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Over 30,000 Scientists against Global Warming fraud, red eye interview with the Weather channel founder.

The models the IPCC used were corrupt and flawed. Any evidence that did not support the global warming agenda was demonized and those scientists were harassed and pushed out of the peer review process. Your "mountain" of evidence has "made up" info in it. If factored in "the decline" the 0.6 temperature increase goes away.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdt_0AyixJY"

"NEWSFLASH: Antarctica NOT Melting"

Here's the funny thing.

The alarmists attempt to discredit the skeptics by saying, "There is a scientific consensus on global warming." ....When alarmists spend the vast majority of their time trying to prove how the IPCC is too conservative, ie, disagreeing with what they call the "scientific consensus."

The reason why the public thinks the alarmists are more credible than the skeptics is because the progressive masses dumb everything down into a black and white issue. It doesn't matter where you are on the issue, just as long as you're on the right side of it.

There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. But there is close to a scientific consensus on two things regarding global warming: 1) We're in a long-term warming trend and 2) co2 can cause an increase in temperature.

Clearly if you agree with those two facts than you must think we should surrender our country to Al Gore's co2 permit derivative trading cartel, right? Wrong. Even alarmists think the consequences of merely the co2 we emit w/o taking feedbacks into consideration aren't dire. And that's where the real scientific debate is; feedbacks.

There is nothing close to a scientific consensus on feedbacks and consequences of global warming. The "there's a scientific consensus on global warming and everyone who disagrees with us is a flat earther" argument is a red herring. The main issue isn't whether or not the earth is in a warming trend or if co2 can cause a greehouse effect, it's the feedbacks and consequences of warming.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html

The conspiracy theorists *nod to Swiftfox* are reading things into the email. They don't understand the terminology so they intrepret it as something sinister:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The comment refers to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Mann told Wired.com the "Nature trick" refers to a solution for displaying data that he and others used in a paper they published to get around a problem in the way that temperature data is traditionally displayed.

The solution allows for better viewing and understanding of the data, Mann said, and pointed to a post on the RealClimate blog that his colleagues have made to explain the reference. That post also indicates that the hacker first tried to post the trove of stolen data to the RealClimate blog on Tuesday.

And of course people are quoting things out of context. One scientist mentioned some regional cold weather records so someone gloms onto that as proof that global warming is false.
But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in it by not reading the article cited in his e-mail. That article, called "An Imperative for Climate Change Planning," actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.
...
"If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists," he says. "The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context."

What I don't get and perhaps one of you "skeptics" could explain it to me. The frickin' ice caps are melting. How does that not sound like temperature are warming?

What is the surprise here? Many scientists make things up, or slight fabrications, to continue to receive funding, before they issue retractions of how things really work later. That has been fairly well documented.

quote"What I don't get and perhaps one of you "skeptics" could explain it to me. The frickin' ice caps are melting. How does that not sound like temperature are warming?"

I can explain this one Pan, at least partially, without getting into some geothermal aspects I do not quite grasp yet. The Earth has a procession in the poles. This means, the north pole moves southernly at a rate of 30 inches in a year. Over time, the Artic is getting exposed more and more to the Sun which eventually melts the Artic. That colder water from the icesheets eventually makes its way into the oceans, which it is already connected to anyways. Now as such, the northern hemisphere is increasingly exposed to the sun, which causes the water from oceans and places to evaporate slightly as it heats up, which then in turn causes the higher amount of hurricanes and stuff recently.

Skipping a few things here and there to save some time, like convextion of the oceans with warm currents, cold currents, and some other stuff I do not quite grasp, yet. But, the Earth goes through a natural cooling process through the increased rainfall in the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere gets colder as it moves away from the sun, as well as the circular weather cycles from the northern hemisphere.

This causes alot of collection in the Antartic region. Which in turn causes fresh sheeting on the perimeter of the Antartic, which in turn with the warmer ocean currents cycle can take some off that perimeter, but, eventually, it will continue to gain mass. I hope that was fairly informative, as it is generally what happens with earth cycles.

The models the IPCC used were corrupt and flawed. Any evidence that did not support the global warming agenda was demonized and those scientists were harassed and pushed out of the peer review process. Your "mountain" of evidence has "made up" info in it.I'll ask you again, where's YOUR data, Swiftfox?

All of the "skeptic" (oil producer) explanations I've read are just flat out wrong, unsupported by the empirical evidence. What's your explanation, and what data do you have to support it?

FUD does not make you right. Data makes you right. Show it to me.

I hope that was fairly informative, as it is generally what happens with earth cycles.If it's a cycle, then it must be a very short one, given the rapid pace of melting. How come we haven't seen this "cycle" before? What caused it to suddenly begin now?

How come glaciers that have been frozen, recorded as such in pictures as far back as 150 years ago, are suddenly all melting?

The main issue isn't whether or not the earth is in a warming trend or if co2 can cause a greehouse effectSo unlike Swiftox et al., you agree that the planet is warming, and that greenhouse gases (not just carbon dioxide) cause that warming?

But you think the predicted rise in temperature won't be as big as the IPCC report (summary here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf)) predicts, an average of 0.2 C per decade?

Or is it that you think 0.2 C per decade is no big deal?

We have seen this cycle before, with the mini ice ages and stuff. Much of North America was covered by glaciers, particularly the areas of what is now known as Canada.

quote"How come glaciers that have been frozen, recorded as such in pictures as far back as 150 years ago, are suddenly all melting?"

It was probably melting 150 years ago as well. Whether or not we were aware it was melting with the scientific equipment at the time. It is an ongoing cycle, even I do not know what is the catalyst, those are far beyond my areas of expertise. Just why it does it.

I suppose I could tell you the differences in degrees in basic map reading, although as a field artillarist I used mils? As well as magnetic north, true north, grid north and those conversion processes? I could also talk about tracking both the sun as well as polaris and the variations I had from year to year tracking those? Knock out the 2012 conspiracy as well? I still would not be able to explain exactly what makes the wind blow, just the patterns involved.

Over 30,000 Scientists against Global Warming fraud, red eye interview with the Weather channel founder.
You might not want to throw that 30,000 number around.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

I happen to have a degree in computer science and math. Apparently I'm just as qualified to comment on global warming as some of the "scientists" included in that number!

How come glaciers that have been frozen, recorded as such in pictures as far back as 150 years ago, are suddenly all melting?
Huh?

ost records of ice masses dating back 150 years have shown constant melting for the entire period, just a faster rate of melting recently. Even during the 40 year periods where the global temperature trend was flat, from 1940 to 1980, ice melted across the world for the entire time.

What I don't get and perhaps one of you "skeptics" could explain it to me. The frickin' ice caps are melting. How does that not sound like temperature are warming?
Whether or not "skeptic" is an appropriate label aside, here's the thing you're not getting.

You're running on the assumption that it's impossible to share the same diagnosis and come to different conclusions and solutions.

With a few caveats, I agree with your diagnosis. Where I disagree with you is in thinking that the recent ice melt is primarily the result of co2 rising from ~280 ppm (pre-industrial) to ~380 ppm (current), and that we can reverse that trend by reducing future growth of co2 levels. I believe that it's literally impossible for us to get co2 levels under 380 ppm as long as the human population keeps growing**, and I believe that we won't be able to completely reserve the climate trend even if we did get co2 levels back to 280 ppm.

**Note, cutting co2 emissions =/= cutting net co2 level, it's slowing the future growth of co2 levels.

Does that mean there's no validity in cutting co2 emissions? No. But the choice the Al Gore co2 permit derivative trading cartel faces us with is a false one. We can either surrender our money to them and face none of the consequences of global warming, and not do it and face all of the consequences. When in reality, we'd only be delaying the consequences.

We have seen this cycle before, with the mini ice ages and stuff. Much of North America was covered by glaciers, particularly the areas of what is now known as Canada.Well, we are not in an ice age now, so your logic is reversed. Not to mention, outside of natural disasters, we have not seen this rate of climate change.It was probably melting 150 years ago as well. Whether or not we were aware it was melting with the scientific equipment at the time.I'm talking about photographs from today, and from 80-150 years ago. You can visibly see the melting.

Just one example (need IE, I think): http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?gid=42

The glaciers were not melting then. What happened? Where's the proof of the cycle?It is an ongoing cycle, even I do not know what is the catalyst, those are far beyond my areas of expertise.I'm not even asking you to explain the exact scientific cause, at this point.

I'm merely asking you to empirically prove your statement, that there is a cycle of natural melting.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Most records of ice masses dating back 150 years have shown constant melting for the entire period, just a faster rate of melting recently.Why are they recently, and suddenly, melting at a faster rate?But the choice the Al Gore co2 permit derivative trading cartel faces us with is a false one.Why are you linking anyone who accepts the scientific validity of climate change with Al Gore? I don't even like Al Gore. He does not collect or interpret data meaningfully, and his opinions carry no weight with me.

He is merely a salesman, a necessary evil, to educate the masses about an issue they'd ordinarily ignore on account of their stupidity, ignorance, and self-centeredness.

What I don't get and perhaps one of you "skeptics" could explain it to me. The frickin' ice caps are melting. How does that not sound like temperature are warming?

Not a skeptic here, but the explanation is simple. If you want to believe something badly enough you will see evidence of your belief everywhere. (and yes, that works at both extremes of the discussion)

The good news is that few reputable scientists continue denying that the average global temperature is raising AND that it is primarily caused by humanity.
The bad news is that 0.2 degrees per decade just does not sound urgent enough to get people and especially politicians worked up about it. Al Gore had it right in so far that the best way to get something done about it is to create a means for industry and (especially) banks to get fabulously rich from the schemes to stabilise CO2 emissions. Since they already own governments they will 'encourage' laws that give them more means to earn a multi billion dollar bonus. Of course this means that people still end up paying not only for those effects of reducing CO2 emissions but also for all that profit, but I guess that is acceptable if it is the only way to survive...


Eri

With a few caveats, I agree with your diagnosis. Where I disagree with you is in thinking that the recent ice melt is primarily the result of co2 rising from ~280 ppm (pre-industrial) to ~380 ppm (current), and that we can reverse that trend by reducing future growth of co2 levels. I believe that it's literally impossible for us to get co2 levels under 380 ppm as long as the human population keeps growing**, and I believe that we won't be able to completely reserve the climate trend even if we did get co2 levels back to 280 ppm.

**Note, cutting co2 emissions =/= cutting net co2 level, it's slowing the future growth of co2 levels.


For each CO2 concentration in the air there is a corresponding average temperature where incoming heat from the sun, is balanced by the outgoing radiation from the surface. Higher concentrations trap more heat in the atmosphere, and by extension in the upper layers of the planet's surface. Considering that the incoming heat is fixed there is a (soft) limit to the rate at which the average global temperature rises. Doubling the CO2 concentration does not double the rise, but it will cause it to go on longer and balance out at a higher temperature.
However reducing CO2 concentrations to their pre-industrial levels will cause the global average temperature to eventually drop back to the pre-industrial levels also. The trick is to reduce the concentration. Especially since we can not even agree to reduce the -growth- of emissions (let alone stabilising CO2 concentrations at the current level. Never mind actually reducing the output).

The French have a lovely proverb for the prevailing attitude throughout the world (amongst those who are even aware of the issue) "Apres nous la deluge".

And yes, the must urgent step to be taken to tackle this problem is not some kind of technological jickerypokery, but simply stabilising the world population (and then over the next generations slowly reducing it to more sustainable levels). Unfortunately this subject is absolutely taboo and can not even be mentioned anywhere near officialdom. Which means we will leave it up to nature to teach us the hard way the lesson that it rules us and not the other way around regardless of how much technology we develop. And in a couple more decades we start running out of oil, potable water, food and the temperature will likely desertify the most populated areas of the world. Which means we end up with countries with a hundred million or so inhabitants that would not mind losing a couple of million of them in wars of conquest. And people willing to risk being that sacrifice because the alternative is starving to death.
Yes, that is the worst case scenario and we may escape that future, but so far the signs do not look promising.


Eri

And yes, the must urgent step to be taken to tackle this problem is not some kind of technological jickerypokery, but simply stabilising the world population (and then over the next generations slowly reducing it to more sustainable levels). Unfortunately this subject is absolutely taboo and can not even be mentioned anywhere near officialdom. Which means we will leave it up to nature to teach us the hard way the lesson that it rules us and not the other way around regardless of how much technology we develop. And in a couple more decades we start running out of oil, potable water, food and the temperature will likely desertify the most populated areas of the world. Which means we end up with countries with a hundred million or so inhabitants that would not mind losing a couple of million of them in wars of conquest. And people willing to risk being that sacrifice because the alternative is starving to death.Exactly. We can either fix the overpopulation now, comfortably, or wait until Nature does it for us.

And then we'll have the early 90s civil war in Rwanda played out all over again, except this time on a global scale.

Antarctic ice cap not melting:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/are-polar-ice-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.

See also: http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/global-warming-is-not-melting-polar-ice-caps-521748.html




Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increases

• The icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region; deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/468/218/ for more info);

• Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years

• There has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather

• The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years; Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting according to 17 years of satellite data recently released (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1548/218/ for more information)

• Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor

• Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased



Oceans are not getting warmer:

We actually have a pretty comprehensive way of measuring the changes in the temperature of the oceans. We use a submersible sensor called an “Argo Buoy” in order to do the measurements. Since 2003, 3000 of them have been taking measurements in all the oceans of the world. The purpose of the buoys is to provide scientists with confirmation that the globe is really warming. But all was not well.

But the Vancouver Sun reports: (H/T Commenter ECM)

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Well, maybe the climate models predicted some cooling?

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90 per cent of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

But surely the other models are being confirmed by observations?

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA’s eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

the whole "trick" disclaimer:

The climate model code revels the truth and states it's to "hide the decline". Nice attempt at damage control and spin.


easurements are inaccurate:

• Temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ for more information)

• Temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect; methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it; See Anthony Watt’s “How not to measure temperature series” at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-66/

•Sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world

• Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts. Data is usually inputted by persons looking for specific outcomes. See http://www.landshape.org/enm/


Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increases

• The icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region; deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/468/218/ for more info);

• Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years

• There has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather

• The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years; Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting according to 17 years of satellite data recently released (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1548/218/ for more information)

• Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor

• Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased.


I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to reduce the use of gas, plastic, recycle more, waste less, etc. My whole argument is Co2 as a pollutant is a fraud. There is only one type of customer for global warming data and those are governments. Based on the information available they are not buying anything that does not support the Myth of man caused global warming.

OMG then you break out the overpopulation card. Since that's your take read John P Holdren's Ecoscience book you will love it. It's all about killing off the population. It's no coincidence that he is linked in the hacked emails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRmITwUyZE

Senator inhofe on climate change CNBC

Antarctic ice cap not melting:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/are-polar-ice-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/You mean Antarctic. Your link says that Antarctica is stable, but that the Western portion is melting. And the study is not published (yet) according to the article. I don't see how the stability of most of Antarctica refutes the documented melting in the Western part, or other parts of the world.Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increasesThat is absolutely correct. But just because global temperatures have changed in the past without any human interference doesn't mean that they're changing today without any human interference.• The icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate,Ok. See above about the Antarctic; how does this dispute widespread evidence around the globe?
• Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 yearsSource?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

Incidentally, natural and human-caused rising sea levels aren't mutually exclusive.• There has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weatherAgreed -- extreme weather predictions are fairly speculative at this point, and they're not likely to occur soon. But they're a relatively insignificant effect.• The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years; Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting according to 17 years of satellite data recently releasedSource? This (ASTER image) looks like it's not melting to you?

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/greenland_ice_sheets_melting.jpg

Plenty of other data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#The_melting_ice_sheet) refutes this.

So you're just wrong here.• Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factorNo, most of the warming occurred after 1970.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

You're wrong.• Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increasedThey fell from year to year, leading to a flat period from 1940 to 1970.Oceans are not getting warmer:NOAA disagrees with you (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/SST.glob+Nino3.4.pdf).• Temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trendDo you have proof that people can't read thermometers?

oreover, why would the inaccuracy all be in the direction of global warming, and consistently so, year by year?• Temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect; methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it; See Anthony Watt’s “How not to measure temperature series” at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-66/Look at satellite data then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png•Sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the worldAnd what does that data say, and what can you extrapolate from it?• Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts. Data is usually inputted by persons looking for specific outcomes.True. This doesn't change the existing data, though.My whole argument is Co2 as a pollutant is a fraud. There is only one type of customer for global warming data and those are governments. Based on the information available they are not buying anything that does not support the Myth of man caused global warming.I'll ask you again, how do you KNOW it's a myth? Where is your data? What are YOUR hypotheses for why the planet is warming, as seen from multiple data sources?

You're struggling to chip away at little corners of the science of climate change in hope of spreading FUD. But you've got to do better: to present a cogent theory, supported by actual data. Can you do that?

OMG then you break out the overpopulation card.It's not a "card". It's a fact. The planet is already grossly overpopulated, in terms of supply and demand of planetary resources.

And as the developing world, which is contributing to virtually all of the future overpopulation, becomes more Americanized, the situation is only going to grow worse.Since that's your take read John P Holdren's Ecoscience book you will love it. It's all about killing off the population. It's no coincidence that he is linked in the hacked emails.I'm giving you a way not to kill off the population.

People like you, who cling to their opinion that breeding is an absolute good regardless of the circumstances, are the ones who are going to cause the killing, in the future.

Senator inhofe on climate change CNBCOh, you mean the most extreme conservative in Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InhofeOnly Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.Yeah, he's definitely a reliable, unbiased source. :rolleyes:

However reducing CO2 concentrations to their pre-industrial levels will cause the global average temperature to eventually drop back to the pre-industrial levels also.
Wrong. Co2, simply put, doesn't determine 'that much' of long term temperature trends.

It's the undereducated alarmist masses that think that there is a near 1-to-1 causality between co2 changes and temperature changes; that was one of my points. They see a graph like this....

http://eagereyes.org/media/attachments/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg

...And conclucde that co2 almost solely determines temperature, so that once temperature adjusts to our extraordinarily high co2 levels, the earth will boil over.

It's widely understood that co2 is one of many factors that explains global temperatures. It's also understood that the very high correlation of co2 pre-industrialization is more so temperature driving co2 levels rather than the other way around. Without human intervention, co2 levels are primarily explained by the oceans; the world's biggest carbon sink and emitter. It's also understood that it doesn't take very long at all for the greenhouse effect to take place.

Anyways, I could believe in the tooth fairy all I want, but it won't make it so. You can believe that we actually drop co2 levels all you want, but it won't make it so. You can believe that we can drop co2 levels to pre-industrial levels, but it won't make it so. You can also believe that such a drop would bring pre-industrial temperatures, but it won't make it so. It's only fringe alarmist science that believes there's a very high correlation between co2 driving temperature, and that we can actually significantly drop co2 levels.

But you think the predicted rise in temperature won't be as big as the IPCC report (summary here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf)) predicts, an average of 0.2 C per decade?
Well, you happened to take off the most important part of the sentence of mine you quoted. Let me quote the entire thing.

The main issue isn't whether or not the earth is in a warming trend or if co2 can cause a greehouse effect, it's the feedbacks and consequences of warming.
We can reproduce the co2 greenhouse effect in laboratory settings, it's not controversial. What is controversial is the stuff we can't recreate in a laboratory environment or observe easily in the real world; feedbacks.

The entire point of IPCC projections is to determine feedbacks' effect on the climate. W/o considering feedbacks, you could predict temperatures with a ti-83 instead of the incredibly powerful computers the IPCC needs to use.

Anyways, onto your question.

The thing you're not getting is that the option we face isn't whether we can face 0.2C/decade warming or 0C/decade warming, it's 0.2C/decade warming vs 0.1XXC/decade warming. Because anything we can do isn't going to have that big of an impact on global temperatures. So whether or not I agree if 0.2C is accurate or deadly is neither here nor there, because we don't talk about global warming because of scientific curiosity, we talk about it because of the policy implications.

And whether or not I think we should do anything regarding global warming at all isn't that important either. I just have to roll my eyes at these people who thinks this is a black and white issue we can 'solve' or 'not solve.'

Now, we can have a valid debate whether spending $X trillion dollars to delay a co2 level for XX years is worth it, but it's kind of hard to have a serious debate when I see Gore-fanbois act like it's $X trillion dollars today to solve every single climate problem forever; the problem isn't that simple.

Arctic Ice doing just fine too

June 10, 2009

This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!

“The Army Corp of Engineers special Web site for the Hubbard Glacier - www.glacierresearch.com - contains some absolutely amazing photos of the advancing glacier,” says Harris. “One can easily see the expanding wall of ice. It's HUGE!” (The website may tell you that viewing is restricted, but if you keep clicking on stuff you’ll find the secret.)

“Even the dedicated global warmists need to know the truth about the recent extended period of global cooling caused by our 'SILENT SUN,' Harris continues.

'When' and 'if' the Hubbard Glacier eventually closes the Russell Fjord, the fjord will fill with fresh water, becoming a 30-mile-long lake creating a new 40,000-cubic-feet-per-second river system. This will have an extremely 'negative' economic impact on Yakutat and the surrounding regions. It's possible that at the shocking rate of seven feet per day in its advancement, the Hubbard Glacier could close the fjord by later this summer, or even prior to that time, if the current rate of advancement speeds up, say to perhaps 10 or 12 feet per day.

“Not only has our 'SILENT SUN,' almost completely devoid of sunspots, been at least partially responsible for the expanding glaciers in Alaska, Norway and elsewhere, but 'Ole Sol' is likewise, in my not-so-humble climatological opinion, to blame for our recent colder, snowier and wetter spring seasons in North Idaho and the surrounding Inland Empire.

“Heavier snows -- up to six inches or more above 5,000 feet -- have accumulated in the nearby mountains on a daily basis since early May. It may be mid June or later before Glacier Park's 'Going-to-the-Sun Highway' opens. (Next week, we'll take a look at what's happening to the glaciers in the park. Are they also beginning to expand?

http://www.iceagenow.com/Medieval%20Warm%20Period1.jpg

Pretty noticeable warming trend to be "hiding"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

By Steven Goddard

Posted in Environment, 15th August 2008 10:02 GMT

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here's a smaller version of the graph:

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/08/13/nsdic_ice_extent.jpg

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/08/20/arctic_ice_comparison_8aug.jpg

...ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

The thing you're not getting is that the option we face isn't whether we can face 0.2C/decade warming or 0C/decade warming, it's 0.2C/decade warming vs 0.1XXC/decade warming. Because anything we can do isn't going to have that big of an impact on global temperatures.So your opinion is that we're doomed anyway, so we might as well live it up.

But you haven't proven your premise, that reducing greenhouse gasses (NOT just carbon dioxide) "isn't going to have that big of an impact".

How do you know that? What is your data? How do you know that that data, or the means of affecting climate, won't change in the next 100 years?

What is your data?

2007 IPCC report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches) In other words, the most probable outcome between a worst case scenario and a best case scenario is 5" of sea level rise and 2.3F of temperature rise by 2100.

Here is an explanation of the scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios

Like I said before, I doubt most of the undereducated alarmist masses really thought that the "scientific consensus" thought that the worst case scenario -one with an 'emphasis' on fossil fuels- would call for 10-to-23 inches of sea level rise by 2100. By contrast, sea levels rose about a foot through the 1900s.

The Al Gore co2 permit derivative trading cartel uses junk science that's just as bad as the oil company "studies" you abhor. Because most of the Gore fanbois think we can either a) face 3-10 yards of sea level rise by 2100 or b) experience 0" of sea level rise. Or better yet, you could get a Gore fanboi-Obama bot who thinks that the election of Obama, will mean (quoting Obama) that the seas will 'receed,' ie, that our enviromental policy will literally cause sea levels to lower.

Arctic Ice doing just fine too

This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!It's a calving glacier, and due to their unique nature they're not nearly as sensitive to climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidewater_glacier_cycle

It's not indicative of climate change for this specific reason. Pretty noticeable warming trend to be "hiding"Your image states that it's in the IPCC report. I don't know of any reputable scientist who is trying to "hide" that.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/The variation from year to year is far greater than the overall trend. Just because it's colder today than it was yesterday, doesn't mean we're in a global cooling trend.

Here is an explanation of the scenarios.Quote from the IPCC: "the scenarios in this Report do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol"

None of those scenarios involve any radical changes to our energy production. They basically assume that we'll keep on doing the same old thing, with only a slight focus one way or the other, towards economic growth or the environment.

We only use oil, coal, and other polluting energy production methods because it's cheap. If tomorrow we find a way to make energy more cheaply (or, conversely, if the current cheap methods become more expensive, through scarcity and regulation), the IPCC scenarios will be irrelevant.

No matter what the IPCC guesses, there's no way to predict future technology. We don't use whale oil and burning trees for energy today, and it is illogical to automatically assume that we'll use coal and gasoline for energy 100 years from now.

In the meantime our focus should be reducing emissions as much as possible, to lessen the impact on the environment and to give us time to find alternatives and migrate to them.

quote"Well, we are not in an ice age now"

I realize that.

quote"we have not seen this rate of climate change"

It has been documented particularly the middle ages with the periods of extreme coldness in the northern hemispheres. I do not believe the thermometer had been invented quite yet.

quote"I'm talking about photographs from today, and from 80-150 years ago. You can visibly see the melting.
The glaciers were not melting then. What happened? Where's the proof of the cycle?"

There is proof. Obviously, what has been left behind from previous receding glaciers is the evidence of natural erosion of those glaciers, particularly the northern hemisphere, the Cascade mountain range in the Pacific Northwest is a wonderful place to start. The evidence is right there on the mountains. The evidence is on many of the river structures that formed nearby as those glaciers melted and moved creating many of the watershed structures of today, as well as the damage from those previous glaciers carving on mountain sides. Much of the melting starts slight, from terms of milileters per square inch. Then, it gradually gets larger and larger until those mililters turn into square inches per square fluid ounces and so on. Unfortunately, many of the Natives of the Pacific Northwest were killed so what data they had was lost.

quote"I'm merely asking you to empirically prove your statement, that there is a cycle of natural melting.

How did you come to that conclusion?"

When I was around 3-5ish, living in Arizona at the time, I noticed if I left my drinks with ice in them, they would melt at room temperature. I then, noticed again in no particular order from the above, that I could stick water in ice cube trays, stick them in the freezer and they would freeze. Also, in no paticular order an object frozen, such as meat my mother would pull out of the freezer and let warm up at room temperature in the sink would thaw the meat suffienctly to allow for more malleable cooking preparations.

Also, in no particular order I noticed people would take jugs of cool water in arizona, preferably glass containers, stick them outside with tea bags in them, and in a few hours of natural brewing as the tea would gradually combine with the water in this fashion and after a few hours, you would have a nice hot glass of tea, or you could stick it in the refrigerator and they would gradually cool. Or sometimes towards the late afternoon, take the tea bags out and let sit overnight, pick it up in the morning, I would notice a thermal variation. It had gotten cooler after it had been so hot.

I also noticed since I was nestled in a high altitude area, that it would get really warm in the summer, being really close to baja california and stuff, that the rains coming in for an afternoon shower would visibly cool the area by around 20 degrees. I would also notice in winter it would snow on occassion and the snow would disappear when it got warmer even slightly. I would also notice, if, I ran a bath with hot water, then, I used cold water I could feel the convection process into warm water.

It was only later through my schooling that those processes were more clearly defined that I had observed. Later, as a field artillarist with my instrumentations such as a compass, aiming circles, and such like finding north with a watch. Using sticks to determine north, south, east, west. I could track astronomical influences such as the sun, the star Polaris, and use those information to determine exactly where I was to in turn, where my artillary equipment was and making that equipment fire from point a to point b. Although, I will admit, I never learned the shadow method of where I am at on the earth.

There is proof. Obviously, what has been left behind from previous receding glaciers is the evidence of natural erosion of those glaciers, particularly the northern hemisphere, the Cascade mountain range in the Pacific Northwest is a wonderful place to start. The evidence is right there on the mountains.You are talking about climate changes that took anywhere from thousands to millions of years.

We are talking about climate change occurring on the order of decades.

Those are entirely different things, in terms of their effect on life and the Earth's natural processes.

No one is denying that the Earth has undergone some pretty extreme climate changes in the past 4.5 billion years -- changes that make even the most dire IPCC predictions seem like a warm breeze by comparison. But that is completely besides the point.

None of those scenarios involve any radical changes to our energy production. They basically assume that we'll keep on doing the same old thing, with only a slight focus one way or the other, towards economic growth or the environment.
A1

The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:
Rapid economic growth.
A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:
A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels.
A1B - A balanced emphasis on all energy sources.
A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.B1

The B1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly. The B1 scenarios are characterized by:
Rapid economic growth as in A1, but with rapid changes towards a service and information economy.
Population rising to 9 billion in 2050 and then declining as in A1.
Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies.
An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.In other words, you agree with the ultra-alarmists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and you're mad at the IPCC for not taking "tooth-fairy"-level scenarios into consideration.

I just don't know what to say to people like you and Eri, who want to debate reality vs a hypothetical, and then get mad at the messenger who tells you that reality isn't as peachy as your hypothetical.

Lastly, if Kyoto was so mild (as your attitude indicates), than why wasn't a single major country that signed onto it able to actually meet the goals it set? Japan didn't, Canada didn't, the EU didn't, etc. The natural course is for co2 emissions to grow. Keeping co2 emissions at the same level is hard enough, much as less cutting them, and much as less cutting them as much as you'd like.

quote"You are talking about climate changes that took anywhere from thousands to millions of years.

We are talking about climate change occurring on the order of decades.

Those are entirely different things, in terms of their effect on life and the Earth's natural processes.

No one is denying that the Earth has undergone some pretty extreme climate changes in the past 4.5 billion years -- changes that make even the most dire IPCC predictions seem like a warm breeze by comparison. But that is completely besides the point"

Yes and no. Some of those changes in the natural cycles of the earth I had been talking about are short term effects to long term effects. This is also generally what happens without man made influences. With the vibrations with techtonics, polar procession, tidal influences, solar influences, can cause short term effects such as glacial melting, increased evaporation of water supply which in turn effects climate zones with increased rainfall, like the increases in tropical storms recently, higher temperatures regionally. I would be willing to bet the increased temperatures in the Northern hemisphere would coincide with the southern hemisphere getting colder.

I think we're probably too late for any of the very weak measures that people are proposing. We'll probably need something pretty drastic to prevent a 4'-6' warm up in the next 20 years. Like spraying particles into the atomosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption. You think illegal immigration is bad now? Just wait a billion people are starving or flooded out of their countries.

Yes and no. Some of those changes in the natural cycles of the earth I had been talking about are short term effects to long term effects.Name the natural cycles that do not involve a natural disaster (meteor impact, major volcanic eruption, flood basalts, and so on) and can increase mean global temperatures by 5 C in 100 years.

I just don't know what to say to people like you and Eri, who want to debate reality vs a hypothetical, and then get mad at the messenger who tells you that reality isn't as peachy as your hypothetical.You're talking about today's reality. No one, not the IPCC, not you, can predict what reality will be like 50 to 100 years from now.

Look at all the ridiculous predictions made in 1900 or 1950 about the state of technology today. In 1940s, the president of IBM thought there would be a world market for five computers total. In the 1960s, Americans thought we'd be landing men on Mars in just a decade.

These people were making predictions on the assumption that everything would stay exactly the same, that progress would continue on a predictable trajectory, and that opinions and priorities would remain the same. They were wrong, and you are wrong.

Over time, technology changes, and, more importantly, opinions change, often in very unpredictable ways.The natural course is for co2 emissions to grow. Keeping co2 emissions at the same level is hard enough, much as less cutting them, and much as less cutting them as much as you'd like.Only if technology stays the same and opinions stay the same. They won't.

We emit greenhouse gasses today for trivial reasons, and we can end it quite easily if we wanted to.

All it takes is a slight change in prevailing opinion -- a belief that global warming is a bad thing -- and you'll see the entire energy industry transformed.

It is silly to assume that, for the next 100 years, everything will stay exactly the same as it is today. And it is foolish to recklessly pollute the planet based on that faulty assumption.

Do you deny the following?

1) Using resources of any kind adds to co2 level

2) A power plant, of any type, and of any conceivable type, requires resources



This should help you get away from your strawman arguments.

Do you deny the following?

1) Using resources of any kind adds to co2 level

Exhaling also adds to carbon dioxide levels. That is besides the point.

The point is that we have, today, energy technologies available that produce zero, or virtually zero, direct greenhouses gasses.

And we have, today, very simple means of increasing worldwide carbon sinks.

We could do it right now if we wanted to, and it wouldn't even require much of a sacrifice.

All it takes at this point is a change of opinion. Once we want it to happen, it will happen. And that is assuming that we will not develop any new energy technologies at all in the next 100 years.2) A power plant, of any type, and of any conceivable type, requires resourcesYes, solar power requires the energy radiated from a massive fusion reaction. Fortunately we have a handy one nearby for the next few billion years.

What is your point exactly? There are plenty of technologies available that are far more sustainable and less damaging to the environment than oil and coal. We should use them. That's no straw man.

The point is that we have, today, energy technologies available that produce zero, or virtually zero, direct greenhouses gasses.
No, we don't.

A commercial wind turbine requires about 220 tons of steel. It is impossible to create that much steel without emitting a significant amount of co2.

Yes, solar power requires the energy radiated from a massive fusion reaction. Fortunately we have a handy one nearby for the next few billion years.
Uhhh, solar power, just like wind power, is actually more co2 intensive in the short run than a comparable coal or nat gas plant. That is, building a wind or solar farm that can produce X kWH of energy is more co2 intensive than building a coal plant that can produce X kWH of energy. The idea is that overtime that the lower operating emissions of the wind and solar plants will make it a net benefit in a long run. But calling it "carbon neutral" is a flat out lie that only Al Gore co2 permit derivative traders and the people who fall victim to their propaganda campaign believe.

Yeah. It's people like you that got us corn ethanol. Corn ethanol does indeed burn cleaner than gasoline, but if you consider corn ethanol emissions from production + end use to oil emissions from production + end use, corn ethanol is hardly a winner. Looking solely at the amount of co2 produced by the end using while ignoring the production is not a good idea. This is the fallacy of the renewable fundamentalists.

But energy is only one part of the GHG equation. As long as the population 1) eats 2) grows and 3) poverty is eliminated, co2 levels are going to go up, end of story. Yes, energy is a very big part of the US's co2 emissions, but worldwide, deforestation, agricultural, and resource use in general play a bigger role than in just the US.

Unless you know a way to shrink the population or to stop elimination of poverty, co2 levels are going to rise.

What is your point exactly? There are plenty of technologies available that are far more sustainable and less damaging to the environment than oil and coal. We should use them.
If you admit they're less damaging as opposed to non-damaging, that's progress.

The thing you're not getting is that the option we face isn't whether we can face 0.2C/decade warming or 0C/decade warming, it's 0.2C/decade warming vs 0.1XXC/decade warming. Because anything we can do isn't going to have that big of an impact on global temperatures.

Uhhh, solar power, just like wind power, is actually more co2 intensive in the short run than a comparable coal or nat gas plant.Do they only operate in the short run? :rolleyes:

Now who's bringing up straw man arguments?Yeah. It's people like you that got us corn ethanol. Corn ethanol does indeed burn cleaner than gasoline, but if you consider corn ethanol emissions from production + end use to oil emissions from production + end use, corn ethanol is hardly a winner.No, it's special interests that got us corn ethanol.

I have always thought biofuels were silly, because the ongoing environmental damage they cause outweighs the slight environmental benefits.Looking solely at the amount of co2 produced by the end using while ignoring the production is not a good idea.No one does that. All serious estimates of greenhouse gas emissions cover not only the direct emissions, but also indirect emissions which includes building the plant and mining and transporting materials around.

The reason your point isn't frequently mentioned is that the resources needed to build the power generation facility are insignificant compared to the resources needed to run the facility throughout its useful life.

The most significant indirect emissions are actually those from transportation, and that also assumes that we'll continue to burn gasoline for transportation.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/education/IAEA%202000(1).gif

Unless you know a way to shrink the population or to stop elimination of poverty,In fact I do. Stop irresponsible breeding.

Limit the breeding rate to 2 offspring per woman, instead of the current average of 2.3, and you will stabilize the population immediately. Take it below 2, and you will reduce the population.

That, too, only requires a slight change of opinion to effect a dramatic change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

By Stephen Dinan

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler

Declan McCullagh summarizes how global warming advocates are busy trying to extricate the climategate crooks from the UN IPCC agenda, despite the fact that they produced the data that the IPCC used in its 2007 report:

“Some mainstream academics working in the area have distanced themselves from Mann, Jones, and other researchers whose correspondence has drawn allegations of impropriety. Aynsley Kellow, a professor at the University of Tasmania who was an expert reviewer for a U.N. global warming report, told ABC Radio there was evidence of a “willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you’ve got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified.”

“Hans von Storch, director of the Director of Institute for Coastal Research who was assailed by Mann in one e-mail message, calls the CRU axis a “cartel” and suggests that Jones and others avoid reviewing papers. A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said Mann and his allies “should be barred” from future United Nations proceedings and warned that “the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that (now former) CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.

$19 million alone came between the years 2000 and 2006.

Massaging the scientific data, hiding a decline in temperatures, hijacking the peer-review system and blackballing dissenting scientific opinion does not look good for Jones in the context of such financial gain.

Another document leaked from the CRU, titled potential-funding.doc, lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists considered pressing “energy agencies” that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.

Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.

Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality backed by science.

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information ActChris Horner is a senior fellow at a "think tank" (propaganda organization) called the Competitive Enterprise Institute that has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil and has spouted anti-environmental messages for years.

And he's "demanding" access to private data under a law that doesn't permit such access.

Unsupported accusations by biased oil company spokesmen amount to, well, nothing.

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that (now former) CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality backed by science.Potential. As in, not actual.

The actual source of funding, various government agencies, do not "have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality."

ExxonMobil does, however, have the opposite interest.

The actual source of funding, various government agencies, do not "have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality."

Government agencies always want to expand their funding and power.

I don't remember the last time a person from a government agency has gone to congress and complained about their agency having too much funding and/or authority...

You have intentionally confused the 22.6 million he actually got with the additional "potential financial backers" he could potentially get. I completely disagree, and believe that governments do have a vested interest in man caused climate change.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Former-NASA-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-to-contract-fraud-8613137-78268862.html

[Print] [Email]
Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud
By: Bill Myers
Examiner Staff Writer
December 2, 2009

A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world's most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth's atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife's company.




Al gore is tucking his tail:

Berlingske regret to announce that Al Gore has canceled his event. The more than 3,000 readers who bought a ticket, get money back.

Al Gore has this morning told Berlingske Media's great annoyance has canceled his planned major climate talks for Danes 16th december

....

Cancellation comes with regard to unforeseen changes in Al Gore's program for the climate summit, COP 15

Climategate have anything to do with this?



"http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_abc_filters_working_beautifully/"


Andrew Bolt
Thursday, December 03, 2009 at 07:32am


Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on Google:

21,400,000

Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on ABC Online:

One.

One got through? But relax. It was just a reader’s response to yet another article by a warmist scientist.

Why would you want to censor climategate?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_stopping_the_news_at_our_borders


Andrew Bolt
Friday, December 04, 2009 at 12:03am

Which country’s media is least willing to report on Climategate? John Roskam divides Google mentions per country of origin by population, and confirms your suspicions:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/pic_thumb.jpg

Why would the government of Australia want this censored?

Related : Australian Senate Votes Down Carbon Laws

The Australian government plans to reintroduce its emission trading scheme to the parliament for a third time in February after a hostile Senate voted down the legislation on Wednesday.

"Climategate" is not only an inapt name but a US-centric name. What do you think the breakdown by country is of mentions of Watergate, once you remove the Legend of Zelda references?

“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

So it is with amazement that I report the rise of a new term, “Climategate” in just a little over 1 week in the Google search engine.

global warming – 10,100,000

climategate – 10,400,000

Government agencies always want to expand their funding and power.That generally cuts the other way, though.

Not to mention, more government officials are owned by oil companies than those owned by renewal energy companies. Tons more. In terms of people and dollars.

I mean, if you were right, and climate change were a vehicle for governmental money and power, we would've adopted all the rather modest greenhouse gas emissions protocols ages ago.

You have intentionally confused the 22.6 million he actually got with the additional "potential financial backers" he could potentially get.Read your own quote. He got $22.6 million from government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and NATO.

Then the author uses a bait and switch by talking about "potential" funding sources, to try to trick the reader into thinking that the $22.6 million was from those sources.

It's in your own quote.

“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on GoogleWhat a concept, letting scientific reality be dictated by whatever search term a bunch of random Internet nutjobs decide to make popular one week.

Forget scientific study, we should just use Googlefight.

What a concept, letting scientific reality be dictated by whatever search term a bunch of random Internet nutjobs decide to make popular one week.

Forget scientific study, we should just use Googlefight.

No, the point of that was the term is well known and common and is not going away anytime soon.

Another document leaked from the CRU, titled potential-funding.doc, lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists considered pressing “energy agencies” that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.

This is seperate statement from the origional quote. He has recieved 22.6 million.

Here is a link to the spreadsheet
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWW UE&hl=en

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer/


Andrew Bolt
Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 11:25am


Not “hide the decline” but “ramp up the rise”.

Now New Zealand sceptics are asking how New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research created this iconic warming graph:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/aaaaa_thumb.JPG

From this raw data:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/new_zealand_thumb.JPG

Wow. The original data shows no real warming at all. How come?

The difference is explained by adjustments made to the data - almost all of which helped to create the impression of a dramatic rise of warming:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/new_zeal_fix_thumb.JPG

Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who started work on the series when he was with the University of East Anglia, the centre of the Climategate scandal. (Salinger was dismissed by NIWA this year for speaking without authorisation to the media.)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which created the last two graphics and includes an IPCC reviewer, now alleges that Salinger and NIWA have refused to explain the basis on which the data was adjusted:

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Of course, their reasons may well be perfectly valid, involving the correction of known flaws and adjustments for discontinuities.

But given what we’ve learned from Climategate about fudging of figures, hostility to scrutiny and an almost messianic faith in warming theory, a public explanation is essential.

Why were the figures adjusted to show a warming? Everything now needs to be rechecked.

"The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Here is a link to the spreadsheet
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWW UE&hl=enI see government agencies listed there. Maybe you should read your own sources instead of just regurgitating what Alex Jones tells you they say.

I never said money didn't come from government.

I said he got 22.6 million already and in addition looks to potential backers

But given what we’ve learned from Climategate about fudging of figures, hostility to scrutiny and an almost messianic faith in warming theory, a public explanation is essential.A most ironic comment, since YOU are one posting a chart with no source or accompanying data (where is the source of your New Zealed "raw data"?), YOU are fudging figures and confusing terms, and YOU are the one attacking climate change with a mindless religious fervor.

I said he got 22.6 million already and in addition potential backersHow do you get money from a potential backer? That would make them an actual backer.

How do you get money from a potential backer? That would make them an actual backer.

Wow what word games..

He got X money (sourced spead sheet) from these guys and hopes to get money from these other people, (potential) listed in another (different) document.

Omg I didn`t source the images.. Google search of the top line `Andrew Bolt
Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 11:25am`` got me the result.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer/


The line written below is not my words that`s why I put it in quotations

`But given what we’ve learned from Climategate about fudging of figures, hostility to scrutiny and an almost messianic faith in warming theory, a public explanation is essential.`

So damn smart but can`t figure those out...

He got X money (sourced spead sheet) from these guys and hopes to get money from these other people, (potential) listed in another (different) document.Right. He GOT money from the government. He DID NOT get money from these "potential backers".

Chris Horner GOT money from ExxonMobil. Omg I didn`t source the images.. Google search or the top line `Andrew Bolt

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer/

So damn smart but can`t figure that out...It's the same graph, but no data.

Where is the source data used to construct that graph? Where is the source data for the adjustments, and if it is actually just a constant as your article appears to claim, why would the shape of the graph change from the (alleged) raw graph?

You don't see the irony in complaining that the New Zealand government (allegedly) refused to provide data, while throwing up some chart and refusing to provide any data of your own?

No, the point of that was the term is well known and common and is not going away anytime soon.The term will be dead as soon as it's out of the news cycle. Hell, it's barely in the news cycle, not counting nutjob conspiracy theory sites and oil company backed ultraconservative talk show hosts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
"NEWSFLASH: Antarctica NOT Melting"

So they have doctored years of Antartica pictures?

I guess they could with Photoshop but someone would call them on it. Another government, Republicans, someone...

Permafrost melting in Canada and Europe/Russia...Again, I'm sure they could doctor the images why? Why would people from 3 countries doctor the data or even lie saying the permafrost is melting...

It costs money to fix these problems, wouldn't it be in a governments interest to deny these things? We had a President who denied/ignored the findings. We have Governors who do the same. But why would individuals from different parts of the worls all come to the same conclusion who have nothing to gain except reduced budgets from their government when its against the countries "best interest."