Climategate in the Popular Media

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:45 pm

Can't resist posting this reference from Patrick's namesake, especially since the TV commentator is from Canada public television. :-P
Canada's public television commentary says Climategate spells doom for Copenhagen
Posted: December 04, 2009, 12:11 PM by Terence Corcoran
"Let there be no more talk that the science is settled."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLo ... r_embedded

Jon Stewart also took a swipe at the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

A hilarious music video parody of the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ ... re=related
Version 2 after Michael Mann sued over the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQ70is-RPM
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9819
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby riverc0il » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:17 pm

"Let there be no more talk that the science is settled."

As a person that is scientifically minded, I have to admit this statement is very true. But by that very definition, that does not mean that climate change has been debunked as a "hoax" and that the issue is settled the other way. Those in opposition to man induced climate change will be entirely disingenuous to simply say "I told you so" because a single research group fudged the numbers.

One of the best parts of science is that theories do not exist as an island to prevent the existence of theories being dictated by individuals without peer review or repetition of experiments. Perhaps I am not appropriately showing my generations cynicism in thinking that perhaps some other research firms that have drawn similar conclusions perhaps have valid data that has not been misreported, omitted, or misconstrued.

Bottom line is that as a person scientifically oriented, I can see that some data has been called into question, seemingly by unethical behavior, and I think it is fair to go back and review all the data in more detail and review conclusions that were drawn. One unethical research organization does not refute an entire theory by default even though many disingenuous persons will report it that way. That is kind of where Jon Stewart went with his comments on the issue.
--Steve

TheSnowWay.com
"Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs
User avatar
riverc0il
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:21 pm

The problem here is that the group in question ignored scientific principles and let themselves be vehemently guided by a political agenda rather than data. And I'm quite certain that they're not alone -- there's too much money to be made.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:45 pm

I think the CO2 issue has created "tunnel vision" in climate science. IMHO not enough research is being done to study as many factors as possible that might affect climate, without a preconceived agenda.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9819
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:29 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:Can't resist posting this reference from Patrick's namesake, especially since the TV commentator is from Canada public television. :-P
Canada's public television commentary says Climategate spells doom for Copenhagen
Posted: December 04, 2009, 12:11 PM by Terence Corcoran


You can have chosen Jim, Bill or Tom instead? :lol:

Terence Corcoran is a right-wing columnist for the very right-wing National Post. :roll: I believe that he was a big fan of the Bush administration. Of Harper also.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quoted in an old fundraising letter saying that "Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth producing nations"


From Wiki...
Terence Corcoran (born 1942) is editor and columnist for the Financial Post section of the Toronto-based National Post. Although he has no formal training in economics, his editorials tend to favour market-based solutions and a reduced role for government

He is a graduate of the Carleton University School of Journalism in Ottawa, Canada.

With Laura Reid, he co-authored the 1984 book Public money, private greed (Collins, ISBN 000217376X).

He has received awards for his news reporting and editorial writing, most recently in 1984.


Like many of the critics on climate change, this guy has no formal training on the subject he's a so call expert in. And now he's commenting Climate Change. :bs: Infrastructure in the Canadian North are falling apart as the permafrost is melting. Huge problems for villages, roads, pipelines without talking about the under effect that a change in the climate is proposing.

It's like the last Canadian Federal Election in early October 2008, the Conservative Prime minister was mentioning that Canada was safe from the global economic meltdown and that Canada wasn't going to fall in economic deficit while all the party leaders was saying the government ill prepared for the storm. :rotfl: Guess what? The Canadian Government went from a surplus to a $56 billion deficit (record deficit) just 4-months later. Great insight from these guys, n'est pas? Okay, it is as much political partisanship I can do in a public forum, however watch it if I go to Utah. :twisted:
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:35 pm

Patrick wrote:Infrastructure in the Canadian North are falling apart as the permafrost is melting. Huge problems for villages, roads, pipelines without talking about the under effect that a change in the climate is proposing.


Quick! Run! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!!
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:57 pm

I was waiting for this to come up.

Patrick wrote:Infrastructure in the Canadian North are falling apart as the permafrost is melting. Huge problems for villages, roads, pipelines without talking about the under effect that a change in the climate is proposing.


Nobody is doubting that the earth has been warming, however, the debate is whether this is entirely man made or if there are other factors at play. That brings me back to:

Tony Crocker wrote:I think the CO2 issue has created "tunnel vision" in climate science. IMHO not enough research is being done to study as many factors as possible that might affect climate, without a preconceived agenda.


I think Tony is 100% correct. Let's not forget that climatology is a fairly young science, that the computer models are crude at best, and the understanding of all the different factors behind the climate change are not yet fully understood.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:20 pm

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:Infrastructure in the Canadian North are falling apart as the permafrost is melting. Huge problems for villages, roads, pipelines without talking about the under effect that a change in the climate is proposing.


Quick! Run! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!!

:brick:

I guess it's funny when you're living thousand of miles from these communities. :roll: It might not get much headlines south of the border if it's doesn't involved the US or Tiger Woods. Change is happening now, these communities are feeling. Try to imagine that your whole infrastructures (buildings and roads) are build on a permanent frozen ground that is how melting.

Climate change has always happened (never said that man was 100% responsible for it), however human has aggravated the situation. For God sake, even George W Bush recognized it.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:05 pm

Patrick wrote:
Climate change has always happened (never said that man was 100% responsible for it), however human has aggravated the situation.


The question is to what degree, and what is the best way to combat it. Super-Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt and Dubner had a very interesting take on this: geo-engineering. Also there have been some interesting articles about how the cooling that took place from the 50's to the 70's was because of manmade pollution because of aerosols. Because we cleaned up the air the earth began to warm again, to the point that it would have been anyways by the early 90's. If you straighten out the graph of warming from the beginning of the century the hockey stick runaway warming scenario doesn't really apply. In fact, the idea that we are warming faster than "historically normal" might not even be true.

Patrick wrote:I guess it's funny when you're living thousand of miles from these communities...
Patrick wrote:Change is happening now, these communities are feeling. Try to imagine that your whole infrastructures (buildings and roads) are build on a permanent frozen ground that is how melting.


No it's not funny, but neither is Detroit. People have to move because there are no jobs. The economic rug has been pulled from under their feet. Their entire infrastructure is in disrepair and falling apart. It's almost as if they are built on frozen ground that is now melting. Do people feel bad for Detroiters? Sure, but are you willing to pay more for a crappier car? Nope. Do people feel bad for these communities in the North of Canada? Sure. Are you willing to pay $15 for a dozen eggs? Nope.

Whether the reasons are economic or climate based these communities have to face a hard reality.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:40 am

Patrick wrote:Infrastructure in the Canadian North are falling apart as the permafrost is melting. Huge problems for villages, roads, pipelines without talking about the under effect that a change in the climate is proposing.

The Arctic amplifies any climate change, regardless of cause. That's why during the Medieval Warm Period (one of the issues the climategate people were trying to obscure) the Inuit could live on Ellesmere Island and the Vikings could farm in Greenland.

As a person that is scientifically minded, I have to admit this statement is very true. But by that very definition, that does not mean that climate change has been debunked as a "hoax" and that the issue is settled the other way.

Correct. The variability in climate is such that, according to one of the references I posted earlier, the simple hypothesis "the world has stopped warming over the past decade" is true so far only at a 75% confidence level. Getting at the more complex issues of cause and effect with credibility are far more difficult.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9819
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby riverc0il » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:55 am

Admin wrote:there's too much money to be made.

The consensus that I have heard is exactly the opposite. One of the reasons there is so much resistance to the notion of countries taking action to mitigate any possible man made effects on climate change is the potential economic impact. All the new green technologies in the world will not make up for the negative economic impact that greening up business will accomplish. Some industries could boom but others will bust really bad. Although I disagree with economic reasons for abdicating responsibility for reversing damage being done to the environment, those that attempt to refute climate change due to economic reasoning are at least arguing soundly. Taking action on climate change will hurt economic activity, not help it.
--Steve

TheSnowWay.com
"Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs
User avatar
riverc0il
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:52 pm

Admin and River are addressing 2 different issues. Admin is referring to people who study climate within academia. Research $ are more likely to flow toward a problem considered immediate and severe than one of just scientific interest and/or a problem of less severity that might be an issue farther in the future. The other problem as typified by climategate is that there is now a politically correct view of the issue, and funding is not likely to be forthcoming if you have a reputation of being on the wrong side. And FYI the $ in funding on this issue from conservative think tanks is peanuts vs. academia.

I also agree with River's point. This is a reason I oppose cap-and-trade. The business community does not know what the costs will be in future years. The assignment of carbon credits and the allocation of payments made are subject to political influence, easy to hide from the public. By contrast a carbon tax has defined and predictable costs, and preferably it should be entirely revenue neutral via payroll and income tax cuts.

Some industries could boom but others will bust really bad.

Yes, that's why even a transparent and revenue neutral carbon tax would be a hard sell; the prospective losers will fight hard to derail it.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9819
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:38 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:Admin and River are addressing 2 different issues.


Bingo. Just follow the money anytime you want to know the motivation behind anything. Al Gore has turned climate hysteria into a multi-million-dollar industry for himself. Academia fights hard for research grants and needs to fuel hysteria keep that funding flowing.

By contrast, as River points out cap and tax will devastate the economy, not only for business but also for private citizens in the form of drastically higher energy costs, and for what? The effect of behavior induced by carbon credits hasn't been proven.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:45 pm

Admin wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:Admin and River are addressing 2 different issues.


Bingo. Just follow the money anytime you want to know the motivation behind anything. Al Gore has turned climate hysteria into a multi-million-dollar industry for himself. Academia fights hard for research grants and needs to fuel hysteria keep that funding flowing.

By contrast, as River points out cap and tax will devastate the economy, not only for business but also for private citizens in the form of drastically higher energy costs, and for what? The effect of behavior induced by carbon credits hasn't been proven.


Yep that about sums it all up.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:38 pm

Okay, so Tony came up with a columnist from Conrad Black's old flagship paper, the National Post. Oh yeah, where is Conrad Black these days? In a US jail.

No time now to respond to the following point, but here a few things found in the paper today.

A piece in today's Globe and Mail, which most people would agree is a right-wing paper.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1389545/

Jeffrey Simpson's columns in the Globe (no, here not left-wing either).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1384654/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1389524/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1387822/

Not sure if any while bother reading any of this, but I don't have the time to waste in repeating stuff ...especially when I have a few old ski related stuff, including TRs, to post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -editorial

One last quote. Editorila from 56 newspapers around the world.

Copenhagen climate change conference: 'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages
Copenhagen climate change summit

Editorial
The Guardian, Monday 7 December 2009
Article history


Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

This editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons
'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation' by The Guardian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at guardian.co.uk.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nment-team
(please note this Creative Commons license is valid until 18 December 2009)


I know some people here are part of the Flat Earth Society, but I'll post this stuff anyway.

TGR's new movie Generations is now available for free
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/show ... p?t=177558

rfarren wrote:
Admin wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:Admin and River are addressing 2 different issues.


Bingo. Just follow the money anytime you want to know the motivation behind anything. Al Gore has turned climate hysteria into a multi-million-dollar industry for himself. Academia fights hard for research grants and needs to fuel hysteria keep that funding flowing.

By contrast, as River points out cap and tax will devastate the economy, not only for business but also for private citizens in the form of drastically higher energy costs, and for what? The effect of behavior induced by carbon credits hasn't been proven.


Yep that about sums it all up.


I couldn't care less about Al Gore. Never like the guy or his wife, I guess I liked Frank Zappa as a kid.

Academia? What about the Lobbyish? Coal industry, Transport Industry, Petrolumn Industry, etc etc etc

Don't tell me that Academia weight is even close to the power and influence of these industry?
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use