if you dont believe in global warming sign this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .RC.

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

---

Interesting stuff....but Im dubious. Here's a quote from the article:

"And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real"

Punctuation and capitalisation makes it read like an Eastern Europe sourced spam mail.

Anybody that wants to believe material stolen basically to reset for profit must be pretty desperate. Russia has some of the worst gangsters in the world, relying on stolen documents coming out of there as having any credability is almost beyond belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrobor

relying on stolen documents coming out of there as having any credability is almost beyond belief.

---

Hadley Climatic Research Centre has confirmed they had emails stolen..

No one knows where the original hacker is based, they would have been hosted in Russia for the very reason of anonymity..

http://news.google.com.au/news/more?...qK3IYapXa_Wh7M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .RC.

Hadley Climatic Research Centre has confirmed they had emails stolen..

No one knows where the original hacker is based, they would have been hosted in Russia for the very reason of anonymity..

In the trenches on climate change, ho... - Google News

---

Perhaps it's just me but I'm getting a little confused with this. There doesn't appear to be a Hadley Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia.
Puzzled,
Jim

A bit less puzzled now. It seems the early reports got it wrong.
Jim

Climatic Research Unit

And if they are so sure of their info why are they refusing FOI requests???

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/

Doing research you can not disclose intermediate results as they prove nothing. The best way to explain this is to explain random chance. This is shown by dropping grain from a height. The first few grains bounce in any direction and there is no method of reasoning. But the more grain that falls, the more a pattern develops and the more accurate will the conclusion be. If you put out simple figures for one year, you may find the earth cooled that year. That means absolutely nothing, nor would one year of increase. Its the slow pattern thats important not the ravings of those with causes.

Sceptic or supporter there are a number of things that give me concern with the current situation:

Climate change science has become a new religion. The speed with which any that claim an alternate view is damned is terrible. The language is that of McCarthyism. You are either one of us or in the extreme fringe.

The abuse of the "science" is also ugly. Supporters claim the science is now set in stone, that models have proven the future of climate change. Yet those scientists that choose to publish alternate findings are immediately accused of bias. Often with the accusers sourcing their own evidence from other sites that then base their evidence on yet more sites. Sometimes finding the actual source of the information is like chasing the cats tail.
People are so desperate for their new found cause to be cut-and-dried. They need the villains in black and the good guys in white. Nothing in science (especially those involving predictive models) is as simple as that. Yes, there is now historic data that can show warming/change but there is also data that shows the opposite. The problem is that now dissenting data is hardly afforded proper peer review so it’s true value is difficult to assess. That is terrible science. I’m the first to admit I can’t understand all the papers I’ve been reading lately, that’s what I need the scientists for. The problem is that I’m no longer confident the scientific community is actually engaging the thorough peer review anymore. The dissenting science I see is damned so quickly I can rarely find any useful information on actually why it was or wasn’t discredited – such is the volume of the screams of “Heretic!”.

Finally outside of the climate change there is the ETS and Copenhagen. At best (and when has something proposed by any government achieved 100% of its goals) Australia’s 5% reduction target would get swallowed up twice a year by Chinas growth alone. To those that say China is looking at renewable energy, China is looking for ANY energy. They are headed for 80 years of economic growth that will require an astounding amount of energy. Most of this will be nuclear if we’re lucky and coal if we are not. The fact that nuclear energy has low carbon emission is just a coincidence for China (and India) it’s the power they want.<o></o>

So we are left with an ETS. Surely it’s easy to see the driver for this is the amount of money that can be made by monetising the carbon. This ETS now excludes farmers, subsidises industry and leaves the consumer with no knowledge of the level of its financial impact and the government with little control over the price of carbon (that tax we will all be paying). The Copenhagen treaty as it stands means a country gives up its rights with regards to the price of carbon and the amount it owes the lesser polluting nations to an unelected body. The third world countries will sign the treaty as they stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars. Rudd will sign it because he has a large ego and an addiction to destiny. The question is who else will follow.

Sorry for the rant but this is something that gives me great concern. Leaving my kids with a possible environmental burden slightly improved for a definite economic burden with no relief in sight is a bad bad thing.<o></o><o>
</o>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

So we are left with an ETS. <o>
</o>

---

Which is stupid as an ETS is anti-renewable energy..

To build renewable energy systems first requires "dirty" energy..

To build a dam requires lots of oil....To build a nuclear power plant requires lots and lots of oil and coal for the material and labour..

An ETS will make all these things much much more expensive to build so we don't build as many...The ETS is like cutting off your perfectly good arm and then trying to build something..

If any country is allowed to increase emissions then the stuff will simply be built over there..Can we even trust other countries to correctly audit their emissions, especially if most of their energy requirements are internally generated... For example, the mythical country of Romonon tells us they used 100 million barrels of oil in a year which they sourced from their own oil wells, when in fact they used 1 billion barrels...

I don't believe in this fire, it can't hurt me.

http://www.cruzis-coins.com/tmp/fir001.jpg

Taken 10 mins ago as the rainforest burns at our doorstep, at least one house has gone up in smoke ........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrobor

Doing research you can not disclose intermediate results as they prove nothing. The best way to explain this is to explain random chance. This is shown by dropping grain from a height. The first few grains bounce in any direction and there is no method of reasoning. But the more grain that falls, the more a pattern develops and the more accurate will the conclusion be. If you put out simple figures for one year, you may find the earth cooled that year. That means absolutely nothing, nor would one year of increase. Its the slow pattern thats important not the ravings of those with causes.

---

I agree. Look at the so called scientifically based stories that hit the press. Some research might point at evidence of the cause of a particular cancer. The press changes it to a cancer cure being imminent. Anyone remember interferon? It was going to be the cure for everything including the common cold.
I'm still sneezing every year :D
Cheers
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cruzi

I don't believe in this fire, it can't hurt me.

---

Have faith Cruzi :D. Seriously though, keep safe.
Jim

sure i belive in global warming.

do i belive people have anything to do with it. NO

everything goes in cycles it will heat up a little then it will cool down a little.

how mutch has teh globe warmed really?

has someone done the research and got all teh temps for every day everyware in the world for teh last 200 years and actualy worked it out?

if so lets see teh results.
what about teh 200 years before that? how do we knoe things hadent been colling down before.

after all tehre have been ice ages before.

watching teh news over teh weekend and all that u see is bushfires. they are just teh inn thing at teh moment. bushfires have been happening forever. the reason they are so bad now is because teh government has spent to long listening to greenies. and people are idiots no matter how bad teh bushfire is our house wont burn because we know what to do and dont have trees and shrubs growing right up to out front door.

I absolutely agree with you there carl.
MikeB, well said.:2tsup:

Alot of discussion going on in here with people quoting from websites run by anti global warming lobby. Also alot of shooting down of the ICPP and its activities. I wonder how many in here have actually been to the IPCC website and downloaded and read any of their reports? Theyre not too heavy reading for anyone who didnt flunk high school science.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change