What are your thoughts on the current findings on ” Climate-gate” ?
What are your thoughts on the current findings on ” Climate-gate” ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FX-JhDJR…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_…
From what I understand the “global warming” scare was based on false data, so that individuals such as Al Gore could be able to sell ” and profit ” off of their green technologies.
What are your thought on this ?
| Print article | This entry was posted by mosotech on July 8, 2010 at 11:48 am, and is filed under Green Technology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
![Modern Warfare 2: The Ken Burton Show Part 50: Thermonuclear War (MW2 Gameplay/Commentary) [HD]](http://moso-technology.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-popular-posts/favicon.ico){kind=small}
about 1 year ago
To be honest, this debate could go on for hours! Personally, from a scientific view point the majority of evidence collated does point towards climate change. However there is a lot of evidence that refutes this, not as much I might add, however it is easy to get funding for experiments for climate change and eco friendly products than it is to challenge the need for it. Simply put, climate change = big business opportunity which in turn equals a lot of money for government, and a great voting tool. The myth that we are running out of fossil fuels is also a common misconception. We are running out of cost viable fuels by today’s standards, but there are still plenty of deposits about. In Wales (UK) there is enough coal to service the UK’s power supply for 2000 years. It just isn’t economically viable to mine it. Its found cheaper elsewhere. In Australia it is viable to mine for precious minerals and metals such as zinc. This could all change in a heartbeat if central Africa became more stable as obviously it would be cheaper to mine there.
That said, I do think we humans have had a negative effective on our enviorment. Personally though, I think pollution, deforestation and general poisoning of the landscape are our main issues, not global warming. Eco friendly products/ way of life will only enhance our experience of the world in the long run.
about 1 year ago
A. None of your links work.
B. “Climate-gate”, the release of personal emails belonging to scientists working at UEA doesn’t change what is known about the field. There’s a few out of context statements in the emails that may raise a few eyebrows (if you don’t know the context); but really, if one hacks emails from any organization and you’ll find similar out of context statements that would raise a few eyebrows.
“These stolen emails are also opening up the personal lives of private and serious scientists. Illnesses, family troubles. Cheery notes of ‘need to get this surgery over and then I will get busy with my review,’ ‘getting married, did I mention, will work on this next data set a soon as I am back from my honeymoon…’ or their Christmas emails… sent up to Christmas Eve and back to work before Boxing Day was over. Wives with cancer, at hospital, revising papers, while awaiting birth of first grandchild. These guys work without a break.”
What’s really going on here is that these scientist have been “swift-boated”, just as John Kerry was just before the 2004 US presidential election. These personal emails were hacked, and placed on public display weeks before a Climate treaty is set to be negotiated in Copenhagen.
The key point of climate science have long been settled, and these hacked emails do not change any of them:
A. There is a natural greenhouse effect that involves some trace gases such as water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O.
B. Some trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions.
C. Climate sensitivity is 3ºC for a doubling of CO2. Meaning that each time you double the concentration of CO2, the Earth’s average global temperature rises by 3ºC. The concentration of CO2 has risen by almost 40% since to time of industrialization, and will double this century if we continue business-as-usual of releasing increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
about 1 year ago
URLs contain ‘malformed video ID’, can’t see them.
So far nothing that undermines the fundamental science behind global warming theory. The theory requires 3-4 things to be demonstrated:
1) CO2 is increasing because of human activity
2) Radiative forcing is a useful metric and has been calculated correctly
3) Climate sensitivity is positive and significant
4) combination of 2/3 – that these 2 multiply out to approximately IPCC projections or above.
Nothing in there that has been publicised does anything to undermine the fundamental logic. Some strains of evidence should probably be checked, data needs to be more accessible and the peer review system needs a checkup IMO.
about 1 year ago
Not a bit surprised, and just a tad smarter than those that fell for the “Convenient Lie”
about 1 year ago
Just like global cooling in the 70′s it was a complete hoax. For you believers someone will come out with global warming or cooling after this is forgotten about. And a new group of nuts will believe it.
about 1 year ago
Your understanding is wrong.
Just for starters, Al Gore has no control over scientific data, so your claim that the data is falsified to make him profit makes no sense whatsoever. Secondly, there has been no evidence whatsoever uncovered during “ClimateGate” to suggest that any data has been falsified. See the link below.
about 1 year ago
global warming is the biggest scam! And al gore is the biggest hypocrite EVER. How can you take somebody’s advice about saving the planet when they only fly private jets and have huge houses and lilve the most unenviormentally friendly lifestyle….
about 1 year ago
The Academy should take back Al Gore’s Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth” because is was propaganda and fear-mongering based on shoddy and dishonest “science”. The motive was financial gain.
about 1 year ago
i love the comments being made by people like “THese emails dont change the fact that the earth is warming” or the even better one “924 peer reviewed journals can’t be wrong!”.
when the BASIS for the data is wrong, then everything that comes FROM that data is wrong. sure, the “Science” shows that warming is occurring- its bad science! from the initial hypothesis to the method, its wrong!
also, the peer review process was contaminated when certain data was elimiated from the review. without that other data, the scientific method can’t be properly applied, and thus the peer review process fails.
if I am accused of robbing a bank, and there is evidence pointing to the bank being robbed, but then the REAL robber is found, you can’t still say “well, the evidence points to the 1st guy”. you cant have it both ways, and yet, the AGW types are still trying…
it must be hard having your entire belief system suddenly shattered in an epic lie. so i am sympathetic to the AGW types in that regard.