[david85]

I think we can all agree on that.

[david85]

OK Phantom, I have to admit the BBC article was a bigger deal than I gave credit for. I'm still finding reactions from blogs and other less known news organizations all over the web. Pretty much loving it or hating it.

I wonder if any other big broadcaster will have the kahunas to step forward with their own balanced view on AGW. Although frankly the BBC report was downright skeptical.

[PhantomPholly]

Well, it could be significant or someone may simply have gotten fired.

I know that when I have seen some silly articles on BBC I have tried to post a comment, nicely worded (not my usual!), sometimes within minutes of the article's posting on their site. The result is always the same - it never "appears" in the list of comments...

[david85]

You tried to correct them, didn't you?

Yeah they don't like that one bit. Commenters right now are really running a muck across the web because its so easy to post evidence that conflicts with a warmist article. A debate on the "undebatable" can now start up anywhere if they aren't careful. I sometimes don't even bother reading articles all the way through and skip ahead to the comments. Skeptics are even posting on websites like TreeHugger and holding their own in some cases.

[PhantomPholly]

Oh, cool (literally) - I always liked the Icelandics....

Now they want to host the world's data center, using their massive reserves of geothermal power and naturally cool cooling water.

"The data centre industry now is on par with the airline industry as far as the carbon footprint," says Jeff Monroe, head of Verne Global - a data centre company working in Iceland.

<snip>

So data centres are already producing as much CO2 as airlines.

... and the women are HOT!!!

[david85]

Forget Iceland! Send it up to northern canada! We'll be happy to take those off your hands


Just stumbled across this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/0...te/#more-11613

Not sure, but it could be a responce to the BBC article judging by how close the timing is. UK tax revenues at work.........
The idiots that make propaganda like this will never debate the science of AGW in a public, and moderated fashion, but are happy to use children as political ammunition while emotionalizing the issue beyond all reason. Makes me sick and so far commenters on Utube aren't taking kindly to it either. Could backfire.

Maybe there is still some hope for reality to set in before Copenhagen.

[JRP3]

I've removed myself from this debate because it never seems to go anywhere, but this is relevant and will certainly come up at some point. Unfortunately it's going to generate a lot of noise that will do nothing to advance the scientific debate.
http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...t-in-a-teapot/

Some responses: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/2...vin-trenberth/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

[david85]

haha, ya beat me to it. I just found out about this yesterday.

As a side note, apparently some one complained about the BBC article and managed to get some of the wording changed so that it came across as looking less "skeptical".

[PhantomPholly]

Very interesting articles.

I'll summarize my personal takeaways from these articles:

1. There does seem to be consensus that, LACKING ANY OTHER CHANGE in a closed system the increase in CO2 ought to cause SOME temperature increase.
2. The temperature is not going up as expected, either meaning that there has been some compensating change (likely) or the data is worse now than it was in prior years (less likely, since we now have infrared satellites to give us a cross-reference).
3. We don't know what the compensating change is, nor if it is a single change or multiple changes.
4. Not knowing what the compensating change(s) is/are, we really don't know if the temperature will continue to rise or start decline into another ice age.
5. There doesn't seem to be a big conspiracy WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO MAKE A SCAM OUT OF THE SCIENCE to distort the conclusions.
6. However, that does not mean that there is not a huge scam being run by shysters to grossly exaggerate the danger, nor perhaps a colossal but misguided attempt to take meaningless action by those who honestly believe the danger is monumentally greater than those of us who are more conservative.

So, now we have two separate Global Warming groups. Scientists suggest that if we don't reduce CO2 production we may get warming and other ill effects over the long run. And another group crying "Chicken Little" and demanding extortion money.

My bet is that we'll be fine as long as we don't give in to the extortion...

And, if we DO find that the changes are a problem, we will also find a way to reverse them before the problem is significant.

[david85]

Richard Linzen (MIT) recently compiled a science paper in which he shows that the very idea of heat trapping CO2 is very much exaggerated. He used the infra red satellites to measure (not simulate) the out going radiation from the earth back into space over several decades. The theory being that if IR radiation is being trapped in the atmosphere, the outgoing radiation should DECREASE.

What he concluded was that IR emissions are instead increasing, not decreasing as the greenhouse effect theory predicts. Unfortunately I haven't had time to read it in more detail so I personally can't call this evidence just yet. I've been taking less time on this topic lately because I've been busy with other things.

While the Emails so far do not directly implicate a conspiracy, they do suggest a syndrome of "group think" to use John Christy's words. If they are wrong, and they know it, then that would be a conspiracy to hide the truth. However the emails so far only show scientists that are passionate about this and have a very low regard for skeptics but at the same time consider them a serious threat. Hardly surprising, but the vigor with which they try to snuff out skeptical arguments is a little conserning for me.

I'd say there is a scientific bias, but can't call it a conspiracy based this. I have actually downloaded the file and have it saved for later when I have time to look through it.

The request that was put out to delete Emails was something that caught my attention (this according to an online article, I haven't found this in the file yet).