Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Piggy]

Yeah, let's just say up front that people are going to make money off climate change mitigation. Some are going to make a helluva lot of money.

So what?

How could it be otherwise?

We want people to make money off climate change mitigation. That's the best incentive to get it done.

All y'all deniers, listen up -- if you want to claim a conspiracy, you're going to have to actually show evidence of a conspiracy. Just piping up with "Scientists got grants" or "Al Gore is rich" means a hill of beans.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Deniers like to invoke the "big green" bugbear, but if it's so profitable then why aren't they investing in it? Most think-tanks involved in spreading denialism also push free-market capitalist beliefs, and likewise most deniers themselves believe in the free market. Trying to prevent people from making money is contrary to capitalism. That is, unless those people are your competitors...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I doubt you are going to get one.

You're not avtually serious are you? I will not retract it, in fact I will repeat it - if you don't believe me, I suggest you go look it up in virtually any thread on AGW: Last week peer review was the holy grail of scientific integrity and has been cited many many times as such in support/as proof that AGWsd entirely man made. Now it has its problems.

Does anyone care to address Monibot?

QFT.


I'm surprised to see quite a number of Aussies posing here as AGW deniers too. And the British Daily Telegraph gives AGW deniers a platform too.


I have a simple question to all AGW deniers. Are you willing to trade places with me? Let's put it less personal - are you willing to relocate to Bangladesh? IOW, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? After all, if there's no global warming, there's no sea level rise and you have nothing to fear.

I live in a suburb of Melbourne called Mordialloc about 200 metres from the beach.
Look it up.

All y'all deniers, listen up -- if you want to claim a conspiracy, you're going to have to actually show evidence of a conspiracy. Just piping up with "Scientists got grants" or "Al Gore is rich" means a hill of beans.

I'm not sure too many have said conspiracy here. For the most part us deniers are not deniers at all. We believe there is global warming, we believe there is (or may be) a human element. We do not believe that man is 100% responsible or anywhere near it. And we believe that the debate amongst science, politics and public opinion maintains the level of scepticism in a science that many say "is settled". Clearly it's not.
So please take your CT accusations to another thread.

On Al Gore and the money aspect - I believe they were brought up as a response to one of the gullible's (warmers) suggestion that there was no money in Global warming science or industry. A belief which is patently ludicrous and smacks of religious fervour. Geez and us skeptics are called deniers

 

[m_huber]

Does anyone care to address Monibot?

Could you quote the section you would like addressed?

I live in a suburb of Melbourne called Mordialloc about 200 metres from the beach.
Look it up.

The most notable effects of climate change are in the sub-arctic regions, where slightly warmer temperatures are unbalancing a delicate system. Other places where major changes are happening are on mountains with glaciers melting. India has treated melting water from the Himalayas as a national crisis (it is the source water for a large portion of their population).

I'm not sure too many have said conspiracy here. For the most part us deniers are not deniers at all. We believe there is global warming, we believe there is (or may be) a human element. We do not believe that man is 100% responsible or anywhere near it. And we believe that the debate amongst science, politics and public opinion maintains the level of scepticism in a science that many say "is settled". Clearly it's not.
So please take your CT accusations to another thread.

On Al Gore and the money aspect - I believe they were brought up as a response to one of the gullible's (warmers) suggestion that there was no money in Global warming science or industry. A belief which is patently ludicrous and smacks of religious fervour. Geez and us skeptics are called deniers

In the scientific community, it has been settled for a couple of years that humans are responsible for global warming, at least in part. The other possible culprit would be increase in solar activity, but the sun is decreasing in activity. Much like the debate between "evolutionists" and creationists, the debate is public and political, but not scientific.

It is not entirely clear what will come out of the current situation with the leaked emails. I have not seen anything yet that makes the actions of the accused scientists apparent. But this is what feeds into the conspiracy theory idea. Are the scientists getting together to trick people into thinking that there is a problem when there really isn't so that they can make money off of the pandemonium that will ensue? If so, there is a conspiracy. And that is why people are calling CT.

Even if warming is not anthropogenic, we still need to be concerned. Sea level rise (and incidentally, sea level rise means average sea level rise, so your beach house may be fine for your grandchildren, or they might even be farther from the ocean, depending on exactly how reservoirs evolve) does threaten population centers, particularly fragile places like the ones already mentioned in this thread, like Denmark and Alaska.

 

[GreenLines]

Until this thread I never thought of my user name having the implication of it being associated with nature loving peoples.

 

[tyr_13]

Why 'climategate' won't stop greens? Because it doesn't disprove the hypothesis in the least. Frankly, it doesn't address the science.

 

[JihadJane]

.

Does anyone care to address Monibot?

Paul Jay addressing George Monbiot on theREALnewsnetwork <--------VIDEO

Monbiot: "Emails don't disprove climate change science, but suppressing skeptics unacceptable"

 

[Hallo Alfie]

- caused fellow Leftist and warmist crusader George Monbiot to call for the resignation of one of the warmist scientists, and complain that fellow Leftists who ignore it are in denial.

Thanks
Confirms just what was posted
It was never suggested that Monibot was saying it proved or disproved anything; simply that the scientists in question have been discredited and resignations should follow. No?
Also that it is a potentially criminal matter, it is not justifiable and they must be brought to account.

 

[RandFan]

I've not followed the thread. I was once an AGW skeptic. While I don't know if AGW is correct I accept that it is likely and we ought to take action (not a point I want to debate. I support cap and trade). What I've seen of the "scandal" so far wouldn't cause me to change anything.

I have a question. What was the reason for these emails in the first place? Feel free to point me to a blog or post in this thread. Or, if anyone is confident that reading every post will answer my question then let me know.

RandFan

 

[Piggy]

I'm not sure too many have said conspiracy here.

They may not say it, but they live it.

For the most part us deniers are not deniers at all. We believe there is global warming, we believe there is (or may be) a human element. We do not believe that man is 100% responsible or anywhere near it.

I don't know of any 100% argument. But if you believe that human activity is not the primary forcer, you simply are not familiar with the evidence.

And we believe that the debate amongst science, politics and public opinion maintains the level of scepticism in a science that many say "is settled". Clearly it's not.

Clearly it is. Take my Science Daily challenge.

So please take your CT accusations to another thread.

I call a shovel a shovel. There are people on this thread clearly pushing CT.

On Al Gore and the money aspect - I believe they were brought up as a response to one of the gullible's (warmers) suggestion that there was no money in Global warming science or industry. A belief which is patently ludicrous and smacks of religious fervour. Geez and us skeptics are called deniers

Nope. It was a red herring to distract attention from laughable accusations that profit motive is driving the science. Al Gore has nothing to do with that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't know of any 100% argument.

You need to read more.

Clearly it is. Take my Science Daily challenge.

Me taking a challenge of yours (or anyones) does not stop the debate you deny is there.

I call a shovel a shovel. There are people on this thread clearly pushing CT.

They would be in the minority. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, shall we?

Nope. It was a red herring to distract attention from laughable accusations that profit motive is driving the science. Al Gore has nothing to do with that.

Wrong.

"Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change."

They are your words (post #2) and two examples of a possible connection between climate change and profit were given. Now you reject them, fine. However the point has been made showing your generalisation wrong.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

^
^

Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change.

for accuracy

 

[Piggy]

You need to read more.

On the contrary, you need to cite more.

 

[Piggy]

Me taking a challenge of yours (or anyones) does not stop the debate you deny is there.

Baloney.

The "controversy" you claim is as fictional as the "controversy" over evolution.

If you think there's a real scientific controversy, then taking my Science Daily challenge should be a walk in the park.

 

[Piggy]

They would be in the minority. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, shall we?

No, let's not.

And in fact, we aren't.

What I am saying, however, is that CTs are in fact being pushed.

That's a fact.

I've never claimed that everyone is pushing CT.

More herring?

 

[Piggy]

Wrong.

"Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change."

They are your words (post #2) and two examples of a possible connection between climate change and profit were given. Now you reject them, fine. However the point has been made showing your generalisation wrong.

Context, lad, context!

My statement was part of a discussion about the science, and if you don't know that, then you should.

 

[lomiller]

I have a question. What was the reason for these emails in the first place? Feel free to point me to a blog or post in this thread. Or, if anyone is confident that reading every post will answer my question then let me know.

try http://www.realclimate.org/

The e-mails were fairly routine correspondences that were quote mined for things that could look incriminating out of context.

The closest thing to wrongdoing in them is when they discuss FOI requests for data they didn’t own. Their raw data comes free of charge from various national weather services who actually own it. Since these are given to them under terms that don’t allow them to redistribute it they can’t simply release it to the public and may end up not having further access to it if they did. (Most weather services make it public anyway but a few sell it)

Nonetheless they were being spammed with FOI requests for this data (McIntyre organized a campaign to get hundreds of FOI requests made for it even though ~95% was already in the public domain.) and at one point discussed destroying their copy if they lost the FOI ruling and were ordered to release it. They won the FOI case, however, so it was a moot point.

 

[a_unique_person]

On the contrary, you need to cite more.

I have only ever seen Alfie provide his opinion for evidence of anything.

 

[RandFan]

try http://www.realclimate.org/

Thank you, I will.

...and at one point discussed destroying their copy if they lost the FOI ruling and were ordered to release it. They won the FOI case, however, so it was a moot point.

This I don't get. It makes me question the background story you gave. If everything you say is true what is the point of destroying the data?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not buying into anything sinister. It just doesn't, AS YET, make sense to me. I'll keep probing.

Again, thanks.

ETA: It's hard to imagine how honest and reputable scientists could have done a better job of shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Piggy]

ETA: It's hard to imagine how honest and reputable scientists could have done a better job of shooting themselves in the foot.

They didn't.

Just imagine if someone went and recorded your conversations for a few years, then cherry-picked bits and pieces to generate the appearance of evil-doing and posted them on Web sites frequented by people who already think you're an ***hole.

Would you think that you shot yourself in the foot by having conversations?