Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Dotini]

Why not say climate change instead of global warming?

My gawd, but it's getting cold around here! If a notable volcano were to erupt, say Anak-Krakatoa, we'd be in an instant but hopefully short ice age interpolated into a durable warming. Then the politicians would want to nab for us for both global warming and global cooling. Oh, the perversity of it all!

 

[Touring Mars]

"Climate change" always happens, and although "global warming" is not an altogether accurate nor comprehensive term, I felt that it was a more succinct and descriptive term for the idea that the Earth's climate is currently undergoing a warming phase.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry, Foolkiller. I'll try & put more time aside for this in the future.

You are making me waste precious resources on Google's servers, thus electricity, thus creating more CO2.

I'm not questioning that governments are starting to support & promote green policies & it has been, to some degree, driven by voter concern (much more so in some countries than others). Of course, politics is always the delicate balancing of different interests. Up to now, that balance has, IMO, reflected the far greater influence of the traditional "polluting" industries & the jobs they support.

Many individuals, such as myself, don't feel that forcefully shutting those industries down, or even restricting them, is the right move as it affects jobs and people's lives. But as we become less of an industrial nation the job losses become less, and less people have a vested interest. People have fallen back into the trap of believing that it is purely capitalist greed that is causing the world's problems.

There has been no obvious political advantage from being an aggressive "green" candidate in the U.S. up to this point.

Never did a thing for Ralph Nader.

If Al Gore & other politicians have become proponents of "greening", perhaps this is because they believe the science is indisputable & the consequences of inaction potentially catastrophic.

While I can't speak for others I can say that Al Gore became a public proponent by releasing a fear mongering book and movie two years after starting up a company that sells carbon credits. I can see his benefit.

Of course, the scientific evidence is not 100% - it's not reasonable to expect that - but I would ask myself who stands to benefit from promoting the seriousness of the climate change problem, & who stands to benefit from discrediting the (overwhelming, if not unanimous) consensus of climate change science.

If government intervention is the "answer" to a climate change problem then increased government powers (see what the EPA is doing right now), which is something I often point out government doing, would be the main benefit, and those who work with them, and are lobbying them (see Al Gore) would greatly benefit financially.

And I saw an interview today with an environmentalist, Mike Tidwell, where he wants us to put strict legal efforts into forcing people to change their behaviors, thus creating a solution through this kind of government intervention.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121198107&ft=1&f=1057

Now, you look at nations that have, by statute, changed their societies in terms of energy, the Scandinavian nations, Japan, Europe, they use half the energy per capita as we do. They have laws that have penalized the actions they don't want, i.e. the burning of oil, coal and natural gas. They tax what they don't like, and they make free the things they do like.

This is not the path any supposedly free country should take.

I am unsure who would benefit from discrediting the science itself (unless it deserves it, then everyone), but individual freedoms would benefit from discrediting the government's role in it.




Side note:
Earlier today I read an op-ed piece saying that we should make President Obama watch Ghostbusters, as it is a tale of struggling small businessmen who finally find success, only to have a government EPA agent create a false environmental threat in order to make a power grab and shut them down, thus creating a true catastrophe.

 

[Solid Lifters]

As someone who has voted for the last option in the poll above, would you mind answering this question... did you vote that way because you object to the proposed mechanisms (such as that you have just mentioned) for dealing with the problem, or because you have evaluated the climate data yourself and concluded that it doesn't support the statement that the climate is currently warming?

Both.

Now, 'evaluated' is a stretch. More, 'read some lies, and read some more lies on global warming reports and articles' and now have severe skepticism global warming is at all real.

I find it hard to believe that the latter can be true, and suspect that the former is more likely true - even some of the most ardent skeptics of AGW theory don't deny that the climate has been warming.

Warming? No. Changing, in some areas? Yes.

Overall, I believe there is no warming of the globe.

Feel free to reject my request for an answer, and please don't think I am being rude asking, but I would really like to hear your explanation for how global warming isn't happening, or atleast to gain some insight into your reasons for voting the way you have.

I've known you for six years and not once have I ever seen you as 'rude.'

Global warming might be happening, so I don't completely reject the concept. But, I haven't seen or read anything that I can accept as the truth or factual. Mark Twain was quoted as saying, "There are three lies. Lies, damn lies and global waming science."

Plus, this is what I read just today alone...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...lling_to_bits/
The warming theory is falling to bits

Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 08:24am

Geoscientist Michael Asten says new research only confirms the man-made warming theory is in trouble:

(T)wo recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225808398627

Climate claims fail science test
Michael Asten From:The Australian December 09, 2009

"....Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature..."

As Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said:

"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
__________________


I've read reports how the water levels are rising, then read reports that the water levels haven't budged a fraction of an inch. I've read reports how glaciers are melting due to global warming, then read reports that's not the reason why the glaciers are melting.

Since the whole subject of 'global warming' is all political, I conclude it's all BS. If it returns back to a scientific pursuit, then I'd be more inclined to believe reports because reports would come in from those only seeking the truth.

 

[Omnis]

No need for lobbying when you have voters.

No need for voters when you have capitalism.

 

[Danoff]

No need for voters when you have capitalism.

No need for capitalism when you have.... oh... I see what you did there.

 

[Touring Mars]

Global warming might be happening, so I don't completely reject the concept. But, I haven't seen or read anything that I can accept as the truth or factual.

Thanks for taking the time to answer the question, and I think your response is very interesting and to a great extent very understandable. On the science front, there is a simple fact that has to be remembered at all times - the climate system is extremely complex and no single piece of evidence is unequivocal proof of warming, cooling or stasis on its own. Hence, it is not only possible, but inevitable that some (indeed much) evidence may appear to contradict other pieces of evidence. But the truth is, warming and cooling does happen at the same time, and the issue is not about proving one and refuting the other, but building a picture of the situation as a whole. A popular myth is that global warming or climate change means that everything and everywhere should be experiencing a nice, steady, predictable rise in temperature equally, and any deviation from this is proof that the "theory" is wrong. However, cooling of various types is expected from anthropogenic activity too - e.g. atmospheric cooling due to dust and aerosol pollution, cooling effects due to albedo change, stratospheric cooling as a result of ozone loss, stratospheric cooling as a result of increasing GHG concentrations in the troposphere, cooling in oceanic regions near melting ice masses, cooling as a result of shifting oceanic currents and associated phenomena (such as the Gulf Stream), and cooling in elevated regions of Antarctica as a result of changing wind patterns... all of which have been shown to be occurring to some extent, and none of which are inconsistent with the concept of anthropogenically-influenced climate change.

But the evidence of warming is also equally abundant - ice mass loss from the West Antarctic peninsula, recently established (and unexpected) ice mass loss from the East Antarctic land mass, Greenland ice mass loss, decreasing summer Arctic sea ice extent, glacier retreat, sea level rise, warming of the oceans, troposhere and land, etc., again all of which have been reported in the recent scientific literature. As well as this empirical evidence for climate change itself, there is the evidence to show that the predicted levels of GHG emissions have actually been doing largely what has been expected of them - increasing atmospheric concentration, ocean acidification, and a shift in the proportion of carbon dioxide being retained by the atmosphere, implying that carbon sinks are losing the ability to absorb as much of our GHG emissions as they have been doing up until recently.

The important point is that while all of these things climatic shifts could potentially occur to some extent without any help from us, the observed pattern, magnitude and rate of change in these coincident phenomena strongly suggests that human activity is having a major effect on the climate system as a whole, and is very far from negligible. While any individual phenomenon may be potentially explicable by 'natural' effects, certain combinations (or indeed the entire suite) of phenomena cannot be explained simply by 'natural effects' alone. For example, a hypothetical increase in solar activity might have explained the observed tropospheric warming, but it wouldn't explain the observed simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, whereas factoring in the influence of increasing GHG concentrations in the troposphere can explain such a combination of observations. (Of course, actual solar activity is insufficient to account for the observed tropospheric warming anyway, and I don't mean to imply that it is in this example). This is just one example, but the point is that only when you factor in the reality of what we have actually done to the climate system can you even hope to get anything like an accurate picture of what is really going on.

Yet, if you read many (and I have to say, mostly skeptical) blogs, they are almost foaming at the mouth when you dare to mention a phenomenon that looks anything like warming (ironically, the direction of the climate change is irrelevant - an abrupt change in either direction would be just as risky), or worse still, imply that any of it, cooling or warming, dares to suggest that we need to even think about what to do about it.

 

[DK]

No need for capitalism when you have...

[redneck voice]...commies?[/redneck voice]

On a more serious note:

Updated December 09, 2009
Administration Warns of 'Command-and-Control' Regulation Over Emissions


FOXNews.com


The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

What a suck-bag.

Now, something tells me tat because it's Fox Faux News saying this, it's about as accurate as asking David Irving how many died in the Holocaust.

 

[FoolKiller]

The prediction for 2010 is out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm

Global average temperature may hit record level in 2010
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News

The global average temperature could reach a record high in 2010, according to the UK's Met Office.

Forecasters predict that the annual figure for 2010 will be 14.58C (58.24F), 0.58C (1.04F) above the long-term average of 14.0C (58.2F).

They say the combination of climate change and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean are set to drive up temperatures next year.

The current record record is 14.52C (58.14F), which was set in 1998.

"The latest forecast from our climate scientists shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6C above the 1961-90 long-term average," a Met Office statement said.

"This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860."

However it added: "A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.

"We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available."

The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, maintains one of the three global temperature records that is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Warming world

The current record year, 1998, was dominated by an "extreme El Nino" condition - the warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific that releases heat stored in the deep ocean into the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally.

Earlier this week, the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization said that the first decade of this century was "by far" the warmest since the instrumental record began.

Their analyses also showed that 2009 would almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, had pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years, the organisations explained.

I can't wait to see how accurate our global predictions are.


And some researchers in Japan may have a new way to fight CO2.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/porous-plants-global-warming.html

Japanese researchers said on Thursday they had found a way to make plant leaves absorb more carbon dioxide in an innovation that may one day help ease global warming and boost food production.

The Kyoto University team found that soaking germinated seeds in a protein solution raised the number of pores, or stomas, on the leaves that inhale CO2 and release oxygen, said chief researcher Ikuko Hara-Nishimura.

"A larger number means there are more intake windows for carbon dioxide, contributing to lowering the density of the gas," she told AFP by telephone.

Another effect is higher starch production in photosynthesis, the process in which green plants use CO2 and water to produce sugar and other organic compounds.

"It could lead to higher production of food and materials for biofuel," said Hara-Nishimura, a biology professor at Kyoto University's Graduate School in western Japan.

Could porous plants solve all our problems. Less greenhouse gas, more food, and renewable fuel sources. Yay! Now make them resistant to frost, like icicle pansies, and lets get this show on the road year round.

Seriously though, if this porous plant thing has any viability to it this may be a way to cause people to voluntarily improve conditions, especially if farmers could get a higher financial yield from this due to the higher starch production. That should mean thicker and tastier veggies. I wonder if we could similarly get this going on sod farms. Get a good quality grass going from this and over time yards across the world will be reducing CO2. And what about ocean algae, since it plays a massive roll in oxygen production?

This is definitely better than cloud machines moving around oceans, painting roofs white, or spewing crap into the atmosphere.

Now, something tells me tat because it's Fox Faux News saying this, it's about as accurate as asking David Irving how many died in the Holocaust.

Yep, because no one else reported on how the EPA submitted a study that rates greenhouse gases in a way that puts it under their regulatory control. And no one else posted stories about it in this very thread from other sources either. [/sarcasm]

By the way, if you want someone to take you seriously you need something more than inflammatory comments and a decade old insulting rename of a news network.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Some say it's heating up, and others...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ays-scientist-Peter-Taylor.html#ixzz0ZKkfmMP0

 

[Joey D]

The prediction for 2010 is out.

Global average temperature may hit record level in 2010

As someone who's sitting in a part of the country where it's a whopping 12 degrees outside, I see this as good news.

 

[homeforsummer]

Can people please stop quoting the Daily Mail as if it's some sort of definitive source. The Mail isn't even the definitive toilet paper, let alone something worth quoting to illustrate a point. Unless a similar story is written elsewhere then it's null and void as far as I'm concerned. The Mail is worse than Fox News.

 

[Touring Mars]

The prediction for 2010 is out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm

I can't wait to see how accurate our global predictions are.

What about the prediction that this decade would be warmer than the last (or indeed any other in the recent instrumental record)?

They say that it is "more likely than not" that 2010 will be the warmest on record, but there are many reasons why it might not turn out to be the case. I wouldn't put money on 2010 being the warmest in the recent record, but I would put money on the decade 2010-2019 being atleast as warm as this decade.

A recent paper called "Is global climate warming or cooling?" illustrates how it is possible (and indeed, inevitable) that a gradual long term warming trend can be masked by short term variability effects. They show the results of one model which predicts a (massive) 4 degree temperature rise this century, and yet, the periods of 2001-2010 and the period 2016-2030 show no warming trend at all...

The Mail is worse than Fox News.

It is indeed. Peter Taylor is, however, a moderately respectable figure, although I must say I find that article somewhat strange. One minute he's decrying the "AGW brigade" for being doom-mongers, and the next minute he's saying that they are wrong because humanity is in peril for different reasons! (i.e. global cooling, not global warming) After a quick watch of a few vids on YouTube and you get the feeling he's gone a bit David Icke...

 

[FoolKiller]

They say that it is "more likely than not" that 2010 will be the warmest on record, but there are many reasons why it might not turn out to be the case. I wouldn't put money on 2010 being the warmest in the recent record, but I would put money on the decade 2010-2019 being atleast as warm as this decade.

I didn't leave out the section where they gave possible exceptions.

However it added: "A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.

 

[FoolKiller]

I just finished watching the first episode of John Stossel's new show on Fox Business. It was on climate change (according to his blog he also had an Atlas Shrugged piece ready to go but the Copenhagen timing pushed the Climate Change topic). He has a guy from Cato, who never once denies it and even references the IPCC report, and one of the co-authors of Super Freakonomics. The format is an audience format and he allows audience questions of both guests.

Basically it came down to saying that the same amount of money devoted to disease prevention or providing food in third world countries could save more lives than the best estimates of any government climate program, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

It airs again tonight at 10:00 if anyone wants to see it and is interested.

They also have four clips of it available here.

 

[Omnis]

Forgive me if this has been posted before. Has anyone seen this?

 

[Casio]

She got owned.

BURRNNNNNN. (With a slightly lowering temperature flame)

 

[Touring Mars]

I wonder what it would have looked like if Monckton had interviewed someone who knew what they were talking about. That one person can't answer his deliberately misleading questions adequately is hardly evidence that Monckton is right. Unfortunately, it does appear to support one of Monckton's central arguments - that there are those (and probably many of them) within the environmentalist lobby who haven't thought through how they might respond to points like these, and as such, the interviewer is always the more likely to come away from the encounter looking to have won the debate - however, in my opinion, this is simple huckstering. It is one thing to question why people think what they think and to challenge some assumptions they might hold without a full grasp of the facts - but it is quite another to attempt to demonstrate that what something thinks is wrong by purposefully presenting them with misleading "facts" and cherry-picked literature. If Monckton had interviewed someone who did have a proper grasp of the facts, he would not have come out of that interview looking even remotely as smug as he does.

Here's a few of his misleading arguments:

• No warming/slight cooling for 10 years - a quick glance at the current literature would have told Monckton that the lack of warming increases observed in the last decade is a) not evidence that anthropogenic forcings have vanished, b) is not evidence that we are entering "a cooling phase", c) is not inconsistent with climate models that predict the warming trend to continue, even those that predict a 4 deg C rise this century. Notice he steers well clear of mentioning that, despite the supposed lack of warming, this decade was the warmest on record and that there is no evidence to suggest that the underlying warming trend will not continue as predicted. His other point - that we cannot have influenced the climate until the last 20 years - is totally bogus.
  
  
• 'No change' in global sea ice extent for 30 years - ignores the fact that Antarctica and Arctic sea ice behave differently, and that this asymmetry in sea ice extent was predicted in the scientific literature and is not inconsistent with climate models that predict global warming. Arctic sea ice extent has reduced considerably, whereas Antarctic sea ice extent has risen overall. But Antarctica is also experiencing very definite shifts in land ice mass distribution too, which supports the view that Antarctica - despite exhibiting an increase in sea ice extent overall - is experiencing rapid climatic shifts (net mass loss at the periphery, mass gain at high altitudes etc.). Either way, an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is not proof that human influence on the climate is zero. Perhaps his point is that "global" sea ice extent as a simple metric for global warming is misleading - but then he shouldn't make this exact error himself when attempting to point out how wrong his opponents are to do so.
  
  
• Citing the literature, not campaign groups - this is fine if you look at all the evidence, not just that which supports a pre-supposed view. The fact that his interviewee seemingly doesn't rely on the literature doesn't mean that the literature supports Monckton's view - far from it, very far from it actually.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d1adbaecf2f1d58fb3880c64655e52ea.151&show_article=1

This little article focuses on Swiss glacier melting, and references the wrinkle of global dimming. Global dimming affects the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, and amongst others things, the rate at which crops will grow.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[FoolKiller]

It is one thing to question why people think what they think and to challenge some assumptions they might hold without a full grasp of the facts - but it is quite another to attempt to demonstrate that what something thinks is wrong by purposefully presenting them with misleading "facts" and cherry-picked literature.

To paraphrase what he told her: "Don't believe what Greenpeace tells you and don't believe what I am telling you. Research it for yourself by analyzing the actual scientific data." I believe that is important for anyone who is going to take an active role in attempting to affect policy change.



I'm curious if anyone has seen the video that was shown at the start of the Copenhagen conference.


I didn't know they had a joint venture between Al Gore and Roland Emmerich. I laugh every time I see it. And I thought I would just see a bunch of politicizing and fear mongering.

 

[Touring Mars]

To paraphrase what he told her: "Don't believe what Greenpeace tells you and don't believe what I am telling you. Research it for yourself by analyzing the actual scientific data." I believe that is important for anyone who is going to take an active role in attempting to affect policy change.

It is, hence why it is crucial that those who are in the business of policy making do not listen to biased numpties like Monckton (who doesn't practice what he is preaching) and consider the full range of evidence from the scientific literature pertaining to climate science.

I'm curious if anyone has seen the video that was shown at the start of the Copenhagen conference.

I didn't know they had a joint venture between Al Gore and Roland Emmerich. I laugh every time I see it. And I thought I would just see a bunch of politicizing and fear mongering.

There's no two ways about it - it's a bloody awful film.

 

[Dotini]

Here's a breaking news report, complete with satellite photos, of a huge lost city on the floor of the Caribbean.
http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855

Could this be some sort of mistake or hoax? If not, then rising ocean level was a serious issue for somebody in the remote past.

In amazement,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

It's not "fake", but it certainly is not what that article claims it to be. It is actually a lake in Peru as seen on Google Earth. Those images can be recreated by tilting the angle of view. But aside from anything else, those features that look like streets and "blocks" are on much too small a scale to possibly be a "city". The 'streets' would only be a matter of a few feet away from each other, and the entire lake (which is full of similar 'features') is only about a mile long at its widest point.

 

[Mark T]

I've just been listening to some of the crap coming out of Copenhagen this afternoon. Apparently the UK and many other countries are planning to donate money to under-developed countries to help with climate change. Last time I looked the UK was about £1.5 Trillion in the red, we were in a recession and people were losing there jobs by the thousands.

So where is all this money coming from to pay for these donations?

 

[Solid Lifters]

Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/#more-7012

Posted by Jeff Id on December 16, 2009

If this is true, It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.

The article is linked here:

Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.




The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

They specifically state that lack of measurement is not the cause. If they claim the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia would look. Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.

This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.

 

[Dotini]

I've just been listening to some of the crap coming out of Copenhagen this afternoon. Apparently the UK and many other countries are planning to donate money to under-developed countries to help with climate change. Last time I looked the UK was about £1.5 Trillion in the red, we were in a recession and people were losing there jobs by the thousands.

So where is all this money coming from to pay for these donations?

It can be borrowed or it can be printed.

Down the borrowing route lies further debt, onerous interest payments and ultimately loss of credit, possibly compounded by default and national bankruptcy. Down the printing path awaits inflation, or hyper-inflation.

Let's hope their promises are only lies.

On the bright side, here's an all-too-rare example of how more technology might help get us out of the fix that technology got us into.
http://www.physorg.com/news170664833.html

 

[FoolKiller]

It can be borrowed or it can be printed.

Same thing in the US. Federal Reserve "prints" it, then the Treasury borrows it.

 

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps the plan is to demand the repayment of all third world debt so we can then donate some of it back to them!! Compared to the hundreds of billions to bail out the banks, a global fund to help developing economies cope with climate change mitigation seems like money well spent offered.

Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/#more-7012

To my surprise, the Telegraph seem to be leading the way in tackling this issue:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/w...s-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/

It has been reported that the Russian secret service may have been behind the initial hack, and it is no shock to find a Russian economist casting aspersions on climate scientists. Either way, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that this was an issue solely about scientific integrity. The denialists have too much dirt on their own hands to be trusted with being honest brokers when it comes to that.

 

[FoolKiller]

Compared to the hundreds of billions to bail out the banks, a global fund to help developing economies cope with climate change mitigation seems like money well spent offered.

While our president is talking about how healthcare could bankrupt the country and Congress is having to increase its own debt ceiling? You don't give to charity when you are about to default on your house.

Then of course, there is the fact that this would be one part of, as you pointed out, a much larger trend of government spending way beyond its means. So in this plan, no longer will already struggling economies have to bear the costs of a major energy policy change, but also the costs of other countries' costs of major energy policy change.

And, one has to wonder if we couldn't spend this same amount of money on things like medical aid or food and shelter for these same people and save more lives than loaning them money to be able to pay for policies imposed by other countries, who technically have zero legal authority over them.

 

[Touring Mars]

You don't give to charity when you are about to default on your house.

Good point, although I would argue that this isn't really charity (even if may appear to be so), but more like an investment designed to protect one's own interests.