Monday, November 30, 2009

ClimateGate update

If you believe this, you'll believe anything:

'Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body,' says chairman. Rajendra Pachauri says there is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing IPCC's advice, after UAE hacking breach.
 The UN apparently believes that science only operates under its auspices, and that inconvenient facts may be safely ignored.


Bill said...

Could this be the greatest political fraud in history? If not, what political fraud was greater (not counting fraudulent political systems such as communism)?

W.E. Heasley said...

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the "policy neutral" IPCC (does anyone take this seriously?), suggests that responding to climate change means dramatically changing our unsustainable lifestyles:

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
"Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion," said Pachauri. "The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable."

Link to entire post below:

jj said...

I say a quote somewhere from Charlie Munger that described cap and trade as, "Nearly demented." I think we can now drop the 'nearly.'

Public Library said...

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

- Bertrand Russell

Scott Grannis said...

Thanks for the two absolutely marvelous quotes.

Cabodog said...

This is another example of suppressed information:

CBS is now reporting that the EPA supressed a staff research report critical of global warming. EPA official Al McGartland said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not
help the legal or policy case for this decision."

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

Bob said...

Bill said...
Could this be the greatest political fraud in history? If not, what political fraud was greater (not counting fraudulent political systems such as communism)?

Yes, because it is the progressive liberals crisis giganta that is their modus operendi to move the world toward a socialist one government rule. It's not really about the climate. If the recent email disclosures cause the climate debate to take a back burner, there will be another crisis right behind it. How's that swine flu pandemic working out so far?

Douglas said...

Based on the comments so far, no one here is really interested in the science, but primarily in the political, economic and ideological aspects of the issue... and not even really climate change, but what solutions are being proposed.

I mean, certainly this is not as big a political fraud as the meddling of the Bush Administration in just about every science finding that disagreed with its policies. Trying to muzzle James Hansen, for instance. There are other, more deadly political frauds, but I'll skip them. Consider how future generations might view the campaign to get the public to believe that the science on climate change is bogus science if, in fact, it is accurate. Do you think they might consider such a campaign as the biggest political fraud in human history?

Today there was a very interesting editorial in the WSJ, comparing the efforts of those few scientists to influence the ability of some others to publish to the Church's suppression of Galileo. The implication was that climate scientists who advocate the idea of human-caused climate change are killing science. This brings to mind the Bertrand Russell quote. This is extraordinary hyperbole and is evidence in my book of the interests arrayed against the idea from purely ideological motives.

I do believe that AGW is real, I also believe it is not the only problem we face. I also believe that nothing will be done to remediate the various fundamental challenges facing modern industrial civilization. Why? just reread your comments. I don't think the people commenting here would recognize a crisis coming from outside the economic box until it hit them broadside. Human ingenuity, in which my friend Scott urges me to have more faith, was born in an era of ever increasing and ever cheaper energy resources, an era of tremendous expansion. But if you good people, who could make a large difference in ameliorating the consequences for society of our own blindness, are also willfully blind, then all the ingenuity in the world will not help us. You are the people with the wherewithal to make a difference... just what ARE your concerns? What DO you envision when you think about the world our children and grandchildren will inhabit. Do you ever think about that? If you deny peak oil, and climate change, topsoil destruction, species extinction, etc., etc., just how far does your vision extend? What will it take to make you believe there is a problem?

Humanity needs people like you to have the vision to enact the ingenuity to solve the great problems facing us.

Scott Grannis said...

Doug: If global warming advocates cannot demonstrate scientifically that AGW is real and represents a serious threat to the world, then how can we justify spending trillions of dollars to remake our economy in order to reduce carbon emissions, when we could improve all sorts of things (sanitation, food supply, clean water, etc.) demonstrably for hundreds of millions of people around the world for the same amount of money? Even if the globe is warming, which is still in doubt, adapting to warming might make much more sense than trying to stop it.

Believing something is right is not enough to justify a huge expansion of government and spending gargantuan sums of money. The scientists have got to get this right before we adopt the global warming agenda. So far they have done a miserable job of things.

Douglas said...

Scott, I agree that we should do all the things you mentioned as soon as possible. I do not think spending trillions of dollars will happen at any rate. But unless we do some of the things that are needful, like creating real solutions to weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, not some cockamamie carbon capture BS, then we are making a big mistake. You guys with the money smarts should be doing that kind of breakthrough stuff along with clean water initiatives, etc.

I honestly think the attacks on the science behind the idea of AGW are ideologically/politically based objections to the solutions proposed. That war of words is a political war not a scientific war. I don't know that I agree with the "solutions" presented either. Besides I think we have spent so much time dickering and fighting about the idea that we have waited too long to prevent serious hardship on many fronts, because there is clearly going to be a lot more time fighting the political wars about the information. I think the problems are so deep in the root of things that we as a civilization are not capable of solving these issues. We are too wrapped up in defending our precious political ideologies to be truly innovative and outside the box. The more time we squander the closer we get to the beginning of our decline into our squalid future.

Billy said...