I thought this was an interesting read in the Guardian today. I am not calling Man-made Global Warming a conspiracy or anything but...hold on a sec I have to straighten my aluminum cap...I will admit I am a skeptic. I just thought this was interesting, and was hoping to hear your opinions. And please, lets not act like children....
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was also this interesting story in Der Spiegel, a very respectable German news source. Oh yes, some Americans do rely on things other then CNN and Fox for their news
It´s not a conspiracy but when people are betting their careers on unproven theory X or Y they´ll play with the data to reflect their own conclusions rather than the other way around.
Academia can be a dirtier battlefield than politics sometimes.
Miguelsan wrote:It´s not a conspiracy but when people are betting their careers on unproven theory X or Y they´ll play with the data to reflect their own conclusions rather than the other way around.
Academia can be a dirtier battlefield than politics sometimes.
The mainstream media is being very, very quiet on this, or focusing on the hacker getting the info angle.
Very few are delving into the really poor form of the scientists and what they did/ were trying to do (I'll leave it at that)
Here is a very brief summary so far (there are tousands of emails to trawl through)
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
It seems to me that very careful examination of the documents is required and this will take a long time.
160MB of emails covering 13 years must contain hundreds of thousands of documents, many of them unrelated to each other. It will be a huge job to tally and collate everything. No-one has had time to do that yet, let alone the mainstream media, who only found the story a day or two ago.
Before doing that analysis, for climate sceptics to cherry pick quotes out of context, from an unproven archive which may well include forged pieces, seems as much like a conspiracy on their part as it does on the scientists' part.
The Der Spiegel piece shows a more reasonable approach, which is that the raw data is confusing and incomplete, so further research must be done.
Unless we assume the raw data was falsified, it can always be re-analysed and compared with existing theories.
I always thought that the Sun getting hotter was the reason for most of the bizarre weather here on Earth. The ice caps on Mars are gone. There are more storms than ever on Jupiter. The surface of Neptune has got some weird spot action happening. Venus is getting hotter. It's more like solar system warming than global warming. Al Gore? Are you cereal?
What I'm interested in, is WHY all these climate change scientists are so obsessed with stopping FoI acts? Surely if everything was fine with their analysis of the situation, they'd be handing out their data as if it was going out of fashion? So why the massive movement between all these people to hide or delete their data? It doesn't add up.
The most knowledgeable person on this issue that I know says that the planet goes through periods of warming and cooling over thosands of years. So that's the theory I follow on climate change.
Ketara wrote:What I'm interested in, is WHY all these climate change scientists are so obsessed with stopping FoI acts? Surely if everything was fine with their analysis of the situation, they'd be handing out their data as if it was going out of fashion? So why the massive movement between all these people to hide or delete their data? It doesn't add up.
Data is like blood to a scientist, and they protect it about as fervently. I don't think the concern is that it might be release, but that it will be released without their names associated with it; allowing rivals to benefits from their work.
I'd have to read the emails to get a better idea of what's being indicated, as I certainly don't trust blog-based summaries. I know that, based on WG's post, only a couple of things leap our as potentially damning. No one should be surprised that scientists look for ways to control data so as to support their conclusions, about the only thing that's really inappropriate is outright fabrication, and those emails which seem to indicate that are worrying.
Khornholio wrote:I always thought that the Sun getting hotter was the reason for most of the bizarre weather here on Earth. The ice caps on Mars are gone. There are more storms than ever on Jupiter. The surface of Neptune has got some weird spot action happening. Venus is getting hotter. It's more like solar system warming than global warming. Al Gore? Are you cereal?
Whatever is causing it, it is definitely happening. It might be flattering our own ego to think a) we caused it and b) we can prevent/reverse it.
However, when it comes to cutting down general air pollution, whether it helps fight Global Warming or not to me is largely irrelevant. Why? I'd rather breathe clean air than skanky polluted air, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for most of the earth's population.
Hmmm. Reading over it, seems quite an aggresive post. Don't worry though folks, just stating my opinion rather than giving anyone a telling off.
OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Idk about global warming. All I know is that it is almost December, and in south Georgia, it's still 60+ degrees. [farenheit, or however you spell it]
Well,it actualy got all the way down to a bone chilling 50 degrees here in Smyrna today,but yes,it's pretty "warm" for being this close to December...even in the south.
The Professor of Climatology at East Anglis said there's no reason to think the East Anglia people had hidden or biased the data. There are two other, corresponding datasets available, one from NASA, so it would be impossible to conceal monkey business from independent scrutiny.
He did admit the language used was not to the standard that could be hoped for in public discourse. (To be fair, it wasn't public discourse.)
Lord Lawson brought up the flattening of temperature increase in the past 5-10 years. This was explained essentially by regression to the mean, and did not wipe out the rise over the past 100 and 50 years.
The Professor of Climatology at East Anglis said there's no reason to think the East Anglia people had hidden or biased the data. There are two other, corresponding datasets available, one from NASA, so it would be impossible to conceal monkey business from independent scrutiny.
He did admit the language used was not to the standard that could be hoped for in public discourse. (To be fair, it wasn't public discourse.)
Lord Lawson brought up the flattening of temperature increase in the past 5-10 years. This was explained essentially by regression to the mean, and did not wipe out the rise over the past 100 and 50 years.
Yeah, I think the big thing to remember here is that at worst we're looking at a few instances of scholarly conduct that is not to the highest level, something that is not acceptable but still to be expected in a highly politicised debate like climate change. Does anyone out there honestly expect the emails among climate change deniers to be of a more scholarly standing?
But the presence of such emails doesn't establish, or even indicate, any kind of global conspiracy.
A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."
Couldn't agree more.
When there is clear collusion in the minority against climate change, how can one expect the opposite, overwhelming majority opinion in the collected fields of science wouldn't have similar skeletons? It's a race to sway the public, which is ultimately blind and stupid. When one side has been lying under pay for years, you really shouldn't expect the other side to be constructed totally of angels.
Well I guess you're right Shuma. When governments across the globe spend literally billions of dollars on global warming research, we can't expect the dissenters to always act like angels. Hacking these e-mails, that should have been in the public's eye already due to the UK's FOIA, was a rather nasty thing eh? I guess when Columbus theorized that the world was not in fact flat, or when Galileo theorized that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and all of the authorities at the time told them they were wrong, and even threatened their lives, they should have bowed to the times conventional wisdom. Academic discourse is about debate, and an open one at that. We simply do not know enough about our own planet and our atmosphere to jump to broad conclusions...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well I guess you're right Shuma. When governments across the globe spend literally billions of dollars on global warming research, we can't expect the dissenters to always act like angels. Hacking these e-mails, that should have been in the public's eye already due to the UK's FOIA, was a rather nasty thing eh? I guess when Columbus theorized that the world was not in fact flat, or when Galileo theorized that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and all of the authorities at the time told them they were wrong, and even threatened their lives, they should have bowed to the times conventional wisdom. Academic discourse is about debate, and an open one at that. We simply do not know enough about our own planet and our atmosphere to jump to broad conclusions...
Actually, the thing is, they aren't blind conclusions. Regardless of what a few emails said, the overwhelming consensus behind 90% of climate and environmental scientists on the planet is that we are having an effect on the global climate. It would take a deaf, dumb, and blind, person not to understand that releasing billions of tones of carbon annually, while deforesting all natural forms of carbon sequestration will have a warming effect on global climate. Thats is a simple science. You can test that in a week with a fishtank and some tape. Easily tested, and very easily supported by historical carbon samples taken from ice and soil. The ONLY question is how much of an impact we are having. Not that we are having one. The fact that this entire debate even exists is testament to the amount of money spent on casting doubt on the climate change conclusion. How much does it cost to go green? A feth tone. It's cheaper to lobby. Trillions go unto the industries resistant to emissions regulation, billions go into research making such a thing possible. Guess which one has more to spend on swaying the public and government?
As for my post, my point was, what the hell do you expect? Anti climate change lobbying has been largely monied for years. The ties are clear, and they aren't even particularly well hidden. Do you trust the guys that told you smoking wasn't cancerous? Both sides have their bad apples, to classify these emails as some sort of smoking gun against climate change is like saying that the T.R.U.T.H. ads against smoking aren't entirely legitimate, so clearly smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's stupid, and it's absurd.
I never said it was a blind conclusion, so please don't put words in my mouth. I am amused by the fact that many, many geologists, who know a bit more about the history of Earth's climate and the impact it has on the planet, are man made global warming skeptics. I had one as a professor and he had several lectures devoted to the illogical conclusions and poor modeling done on the part of many climatologists. He points to their poor interpretation of ice and soil samples and so on. I attended many seminars over the past four years, mainly put on by geologists and a few climatologists, who disagree with mans impact on global warming. Volcanoes by themselves dwarf the output of the entire human race in terms of carbon gas output. This is in fact an academic discussion, and I have the right to, as well as other skeptics to air our concerns. If the opposition can't handle that, without resorting to personal attacks or getting angry then that is just to bad.
This is in fact an academic discussion, and I have the right to, as well as other skeptics to air our concerns. If the opposition can't handle that, without resorting to personal attacks or getting angry then that is just to bad.
My first post wasn't a personal attack. You're the one that walked in with the persecution complex when I said that neither side is full of angels.
Also I don't see how this is an academic discussion.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Volcanoes by themselves dwarf the output of the entire human race in terms of carbon gas output.
And? It doesn't matter. The fact that lots of carbon is dumped into the atmosphere naturally does not imply that more carbon, dumped into the atmosphere by man, would have no affect on the Earth's climate. In fact, it indicates that human activity should have some impact on the global climate, even if it is only a minimal one.
Be a smart skeptic: acknowledge that many of the things we put into the atmosphere affect global temperature. Then argue that said affect is minimal.
dogma wrote:Be a smart skeptic: acknowledge that many of the things we put into the atmosphere affect global temperature. Then argue that said affect is minimal.
I was arguing that, albeit not as clearly as you suggested. I never said man has had no impact on the climate, I simply suggested that the conclusions about the extent of his impact may be wrong. Meh, I am full and have thoroughly enjoyed several glasses of Sterling's Meritage and a few beers, so I feel entitled to be a little lazy...
I think it has been obvious for a while that the people that believe global warming is totally man made and going to destroy the planet have been trying to muffle any nonbelievers. The emails just confirm this fact. Too many of these Global Warmers believe it like a religion and don't want to face any inconvenient facts. The biggest problem is that governments are trying to force all kinds of edicts down peoples throats based on this theory. It's become political and is being treated that way instead of science. It's happened before and it will happen again. Hopefully these emails will wake up some of those that just assumed everything they were told (It's fact, it's not in doubt, etc) wake up and realize even the scientist doing that believe man made global warming recognize there are big holes in thier theories.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Hacking these e-mails, that should have been in the public's eye already due to the UK's FOIA, was a rather nasty thing eh?
Did you agree with Palin's emails being hacked and disseminated?
I guess when Columbus theorized that the world was not in fact flat, or when Galileo theorized that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and all of the authorities at the time told them they were wrong, and even threatened their lives, they should have bowed to the times conventional wisdom.
Columbus was not the first to consider the world round, that was broadly accepted. Columbus in fact argued that it was smaller than believed and pear shaped, and as a result he could get all the way around and to China quite easily. He was really, really wrong.
And Galileo was neither the first, nor the only of his time to believe the Earth orbited the sun, it was commonly understood among the intellectual classes. Galileo was in fact given relgious authorisation to write a book on the topic, and was requested by his friend Pope Urban VIII to include his own views in the book. Galileo complied, but showed a mocking, absurd version of the Pope views through the character Simplicio, which he then proceeded to mock. It was this mocking of the Pope that led to the political drive to punish Galileo, not his scientific beliefs. Not that anyone should be punished for abusing anyone, but the popular understanding is quite wrong.
Academic discourse is about debate, and an open one at that. We simply do not know enough about our own planet and our atmosphere to jump to broad conclusions...
How much knowledge is enough? How much time should be given to sceptics to form a coherent alternate model, before we can dismiss them? How few informed participants must there be before we move on?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am amused by the fact that many, many geologists, who know a bit more about the history of Earth's climate and the impact it has on the planet, are man made global warming skeptics. I had one as a professor and he had several lectures devoted to the illogical conclusions and poor modeling done on the part of many climatologists.
If you want to identify the most likely source of iron deposits for mining, do you give the geologist and the climatologist equal consideration? Or do you listen to the expert in that field?
So why are geologists being given equal consideration on climatology?
I don't think it will cause people who worship at the altar of the Global Warming Doomsday scenario to think, but it is good reading for most people.
I think the reason some people cling to their doomsday scenario so tightly is that they don't want others to take the time to review the data or actually put any thought into their scenario.
dogma wrote:That article doesn't really point out any holes in the reasoning behind global warming.
Its simply a vehicle for one man to explicate his lack of belief with respect to the warming hypothesis.
I agree that the article doesn't poke any holes in the current theories being passed around.
It was just an example of the human tendency to talk ourselves into doomsday scenarios.
The people that argued the world was going to end in an ice age believed just as much as these guys that believe the world is going to overheat. There were scientist with "proof" to support their theories and the politicians were all over it as well. I was pretty young then, but I remember how similiar it is to the doomsayers today. I think many of the people today are more extreme however, and treat their theories as a religion.
I understand though. I think there are many down through the ages who just gravitate towards doomsday scenarios. The other half just wants to control people, and the global warming scenario is just the latest vehicle.
I fully expect Global Cooling to be the next great threat to existence again.
I expect the same gnashing of teeth, the same massaging of the numbers and hysterics and attempt to suppress reasoned debate. People just never learn.
I think its a bit disingenuous to characterize the climate change crowd as one which is defined by hysterics. There's a lot of overly dramatic nonsense that gets thrown around, but that's not really the meat of the issue.
Sensible climatologists will tell you that the world is getting warmer with respect to our (modern) understanding of the heat index. This will clearly impact the way we go about our lives, but that impact may not be sufficient to warrant crisis reasoning. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but it does mean that we shouldn't jump the shark.
Unfortunately, the political nature of the debate forces the conversation into sensationalism. Its a fairly solid illustration of the inherent problem of Democracy: everyone's opinion counts, but most opinions are uninformed.
You are absolutely correct that everyone that believes in climate change is not hysterical.
I apologize if the impression I gave was that everyone was like that.
I was simply talking about those that believe it as a religion and try to dismiss/suppress anyone that raises doubts.
I know there are plenty of reasonable people who believe in manmade global warming and are concerned about the effects, while at the same time realizing that they don't have all the answers and aren't afraid of debate/competing theories.
Dorns Fist wrote:I agree that the article doesn't poke any holes in the current theories being passed around.
It was just an example of the human tendency to talk ourselves into doomsday scenarios.
So what do you think of the Stern Review which gave no doomsday scenario, but gave a plain economic argument; the cost of preventing global warming is much cheaper than the cost of adjusting to or correcting global warming in a few decades time.
The people that argued the world was going to end in an ice age believed just as much as these guys that believe the world is going to overheat. There were scientist with "proof" to support their theories and the politicians were all over it as well.
In the early 70s climatology was a young science and it developed several different and competing models. Over time, as we've increased our data and given more review to each theory we've built better models with greater predictive power. That is how science works. It is ridiculous to reject scienfitic models because earlier models are no longer valid - it would be like dismissing Relativity because people used to think Newtonian physics was the complete explanation.
The author of the article is also rather confused over the idea of global warming. Like a lot of folk who rely on little more than third hand knowledge based on what a guy in the 'lunchroom told me' and 'what I think a word should mean', he's fallen in with the idea that global warming will mean a uniform heating of the whole of the planet- therefore any cooling anywhere is evidence against global warming. Climate change actually predicts an overall increase in global temperature, leading to many different effects at the local level, including more extreme cold weather in some locations.
The author also adds in a heavy dose of 'scientists just say whatever they have to get their grant money'... ignoring the vast amounts of funding given by industry to support . If any scientist was motivated by a paycheque, he'd happily take the big money offered by private interests, where he'll getting paid big bucks for producing industry friendly conclusions.
There's no alternative but to reject the article as poppycock.
There's no alternative but to reject the article as poppycock.
Unfortunately that is the attitude many take when anyone takes a view contrary to the dommsday scenario--"There is no alternative.."
I am also not saying there is no possible way the latest Doomsday Scenarios can be right. I'm just saying it is obvious to many that it certainly isn't settled, and there is no reason to force people to dramatically change their lives just because someone says so.
Dorns Fist wrote:Unfortunately that is the attitude many take when anyone takes a view contrary to the dommsday scenario--"There is no alternative.."
You need to read more closely. I gave multiple reasons to dismiss that particular article (none of which you appear to disagree with) and the said there was no alternative but to dismiss that article. You've tried to contort that into a position on climate change in general. In fact, there are many alternate approaches to climate change, all with their own strengths and weaknesses... but when it comes to poorly considered articles there is no alternative but to dismiss them out of hand. There's too much good writing out there to waste time on crap.
You've also continued complaining about the doomsday scenario people when I gave you an example of a non-doomsday scenario that argued for carbon emissions control. It is dishonest of you to ignore that point while continuing to try and make doomsdayers representative of the whole of the field.
I am also not saying there is no possible way the latest Doomsday Scenarios can be right. I'm just saying it is obvious to many that it certainly isn't settled, and there is no reason to force people to dramatically change their lives just because someone says so.
There's a clever trick people frequently adopt when faced with defending, ignore and supress the facts of the case as much as possible while talking about the issue in the terms of some vague principal. When McDonalds talks about how healthy its food is, it spends as much time as possible talking about the individual's right to choose, while at the same time trying to make sure the consumer has as little information about their free choice as is possible.
A similar trick is now being attempted with climate change, ignore or talk down the science as much as possible, and talk vaguely about people 'dramatically changing their lives'.
I have a problem with zealots who try surpressing every opinion but those that agree with them and try using their beliefs to control others.
I have no problem with those reasonable scientists that aren't trying to avoid any discussion on the subject and aren't trying to force people to live according to their dictates. It really doesn't matter what they believe or what their profession is. I think everyone should be free to state their opinions I understand their are extremists on all sides, and they tend to get all the attention (and $$$). Reasonable people can look at the pertinent facts and make decisions based on facts/likely possibilities. That is why I was focusing on the Doomsday guys--they try using fear and urgency to stifle debate and rush their agenda. You are correct--It is a trick, but I don't really think it's that clever.
As for the "There's No alternative" method, I was just saying I have seen it way too much--especially on this topic. I've seen a lot of "How long are we going to debate this?" which is just another way to do the same thing. Of course there are people who just want to rush on and make sure those blinders don't fall off.
A lot of anti-climate change articles amount to the following:
1. 30 years ago climate scientists were worried about a new ice age.
2. Of course they say there is warming, they would say that, wouldn't they?
3. Oh look! It's snowing!
We have been debating climate change since the early 90s. The science, like any body of work, is potentially incorrect or capable of revisions when new data and mechanisms are discovered. However, the vast weight of knowledgeable opinion holds the view that climate change is happening.
The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Who knows? I sure as hell don't. So I defer to my esteemed colleague, Dr. Giggles. I think he could answer your questions on this matter.
Just please be careful...
I think the good Dr. has been taing too many meds...
Dorns Fist wrote:I think the good Dr. has been taking too many meds...
Slanderous lies! I think you had better be careful! After all, Brent Tyler and Chelsea Tumbleston said the same thing...and look where that got them....
Dorns Fist wrote:Sorry, I thought I had made it clear.
I have a problem with zealots who try surpressing every opinion but those that agree with them and try using their beliefs to control others.
Yeah, but there's a much bigger issue at stake here than the presence of a fringe of annoying people.
I have no problem with those reasonable scientists that aren't trying to avoid any discussion on the subject and aren't trying to force people to live according to their dictates. It really doesn't matter what they believe or what their profession is. I think everyone should be free to state their opinions I understand their are extremists on all sides, and they tend to get all the attention (and $$$).
Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but does that make every opinion equal? Shouldn't a more educated, more considered opinion be given greater weighting than a random bloke who thinks climate change means everywhere is going to get hotter?
Reasonable people can look at the pertinent facts and make decisions based on facts/likely possibilities. That is why I was focusing on the Doomsday guys--they try using fear and urgency to stifle debate and rush their agenda. You are correct--It is a trick, but I don't really think it's that clever.
No, those guys are really using a trick, they're self-righteous, annoying and frequently wrong, but they're rarely disingenuous. Most of the really deceiptful stuff (like the ten year temperature range that just happens to start with the hottest year in history or the tracking of temperature by sunspots that just happens to stop in the 90s when the greenhouse effect starts to drives yearly temperature increases more than sunspots) comes from the deniers.
In this case, though, the trick I was referring to was you talking a lot about everyone making up their own mind, but then talking around the actual science that would be needed to form a considered opinion.
As for the "There's No alternative" method, I was just saying I have seen it way too much--especially on this topic. I've seen a lot of "How long are we going to debate this?" which is just another way to do the same thing. Of course there are people who just want to rush on and make sure those blinders don't fall off.
Well, that's the thing, how long are we going to debate this? The people arguing against climate change haven't ever formed a theory of their own to be tested, they've just kept saying we need to wait until the science is in. What's the point where the science is in? What's the line in the sand where you'll say 'if a study can be shown proving this thing, then I will accept climate change'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.
And some would add: "What caused it, nature or man?"
Thing is, the original predictions for warming were based on the consequences of man releasing carbon into the atmosphere. This was debated, with many arguing that it would have no effect or a negligible effect. Once the warming occurred as per those models (actually, it's happened faster than had been predicted by most models) the deniers have changed the goalposts to 'okay, its hotter but we don't know if man is doing it'.
sebster wrote:Thing is, the original predictions for warming were based on the consequences of man releasing carbon into the atmosphere. This was debated, with many arguing that it would have no effect or a negligible effect. Once the warming occurred as per those models (actually, it's happened faster than had been predicted by most models) the deniers have changed the goalposts to 'okay, its hotter but we don't know if man is doing it'.
So what? I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong, in fact I strive for humility everyday. But that doesn't mean that I, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't stop asking critical questions. Is it frustrating for people? Hell yes! Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. I maintain a philosophy regarding things like global warming: It will be very hard to convince me, but once I am I will be a passionate supporter, and will be fiercely loyal. I guess you could say that I am pertinacious, but not blindly stubborn.
JEB_Stuart wrote:So what? I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong, in fact I strive for humility everyday. But that doesn't mean that I, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't stop asking critical questions. Is it frustrating for people? Hell yes! Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. I maintain a philosophy regarding things like global warming: It will be very hard to convince me, but once I am I will be a passionate supporter, and will be fiercely loyal. I guess you could say that I am pertinacious, but not blindly stubborn.
I'm not saying it's wrong to ask questions, it's absolutely the right thing for everyone to be doing. I wish I knew enough about the subject to ask decent questions, myself, instead of having to follow the larger debate somewhat passively.
It's just that... I think you can learn a lot by looking at the history of a discussion. In this case it was claimed 'we think A is going to happen, and it is going to be caused by Z' and the other side replied 'A isn't going to happen'. Then A did happen, and I'm now quite unimpressed with people who said A was never going to happen suddenly forming a new argument, 'sure A happened, but we don't know if Z caused it'.
sebster wrote:It's just that... I think you can learn a lot by looking at the history of a discussion. In this case it was claimed 'we think A is going to happen, and it is going to be caused by Z' and the other side replied 'A isn't going to happen'. Then A did happen, and I'm now quite unimpressed with people who said A was never going to happen suddenly forming a new argument, 'sure A happened, but we don't know if Z caused it'.
That is the unfortunate aspect of a debate like this though. Both sides say things with absolute certainty, and don't leave any possibility for error. So when one is proven wrong, guess what they have gak on their face, and make anyone who might agree with them look idiotic.
Kilkrazy wrote:The question to be settled is what we ought to do about it.
And some would add: "What caused it, nature or man?"
I don't think that is relevant except to evaluate if changes in human behaviour might be helpful in limiting the effects.
There are two aspects to climate change, one is coping with the bad effects and the other is ameliorating change in order to prevent them
What I mean is, Bangladesh will be submerged by rising sea level whether it is caused by sun spots or coal-fired power plants. So Bangladesh needs a sea wall or something.
Obviously we can't change sun spot activity however if coal-fired power is a significant causal factor then reduction in its use might be helpful in reducing the amount of climate change.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think that is relevant except to evaluate if changes in human behaviour might be helpful in limiting the effects.
What I mean is, Bangladesh will be submerged by rising sea level whether it is caused by sun spots or coal-fired power plants. So Bangladesh needs a sea wall or something.
Obviously we can't change sun spot activity however if coal-fired power is a significant causal factor then reduction in its use might be helpful in reducing the amount of climate change.
And that was really the spirit behind my post, sorry if I wasn't clear.
As many of you know, I am a skeptic of man-made global warming. One of the biggest reasons is the actions of the supposed leaders of the movement. I mean for example, Al Gore was called out about living in his massive mansion, with a huge energy bill, flying around the country in private jets etc. I don't really see that as putting your money where your mouth is personally. Some tried to wave those criticisms away with nonsense like, "Oh, well he buys carbon credits, so its ok." If he were a true believer, and it really was going to be the end of the world as he declares, then wouldn't he be pouring every dime he has into buying carbon credits, living in a modest home with ample renewable energy sources, and delivering his lectures via things like a webcam or teleconference? That is just my take on it.
On another note, I do love the irony that was so adeptly pointed out by the Telegraph. All of these carbon emitting forms of transportation...at the climate change summit in Denmark! I can tell we are really concerned and doing our par
I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.
But all politicians have their supporters and enemies, so it is to be expected.
The Danes provided a lot of bicycles for the delegates but everyone is driving around in big cars.
Kilkrazy wrote:I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.
He was criticized for putting money into a carbon credit company so he could maintain a lifestyle far and above the common person. That is what irked many people. It doesn't look good when you preach fire and brimstone and you don't change anything in your life, other then throwing a couple thousand more dollars a year into planting trees. Do you see what I am getting at? Most of my friends, who like me come from Blue Collar families, don't trust him and other advocates for reasons like that. Many of my friends are a bit more radical and see it as an attempt to further the goal of a complete plutocracy, ie the rich can afford to break the rules concerning climate change, but we peons can't. I am not sold on the idea, but trust me, among the American Blue Collar workers it is gaining popularity.
My point is that making all these draconian changes with what we know now seems ludicrous (to me).
There are plenty of scientist that are doubtful that there is any real evidence that mankind is noticebly changing the Earth's temperature. Even many of those that lean that way admit there is not enough evidence to justify drastically changing the way the human race lives. There are scientists that are 100% certain that mankind is adversely effecting global temperatures, but even their models don't satisfactorily explain all the temp variation the Earth experiences. We don't even fully understand how clouds work. There is a lot we don't understand.
I am sure there are plenty of people (scientists and others) that are passionate and altruistic about their global warming beliefs. I just do not think all the uncertainity surrounding the real causes of global warming and the doubts people (scientists and others) have over the causes and effects of temperature change should be dismissed. Those that believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is going through a unique warming up period because of man made reasons that will result in adverse consequences should feel free to adjust their personal lives accordingly. They should NOT be able to enforce their beliefs on others without a lot more evidence/convincing research.
dogma wrote:And Blue Collar America is...not an adjective I will use here.
Of course I say this as a product of a Blue Collar family.
I probably agree with your adjective, also as a product of a BC family. But their political force and power in America is undeniable, and thus is my point.
Kilkrazy wrote:I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.
He was criticized for putting money into a carbon credit company so he could maintain a lifestyle far and above the common person. That is what irked many people. It doesn't look good when you preach fire and brimstone and you don't change anything in your life, other then throwing a couple thousand more dollars a year into planting trees. Do you see what I am getting at? Most of my friends, who like me come from Blue Collar families, don't trust him and other advocates for reasons like that. Many of my friends are a bit more radical and see it as an attempt to further the goal of a complete plutocracy, ie the rich can afford to break the rules concerning climate change, but we peons can't. I am not sold on the idea, but trust me, among the American Blue Collar workers it is gaining popularity.
I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.
The problem with climate change and it's debate is how politicized it is. Virtually every believer is lefty, and virtually every denier is righty. The science gets completely trampled in the process of everybody joining their respective sides.
Based on my limited understanding of the issue, it seems that there is some pretty decent models that show increased CO2 production leading, after a lag, to increased global temperatures. What I think is lacking is the sort of smoking gun that would justify global regulation of carbon emissions. I think the models are good enough, and nothing else is, to justify continuing to give them credence, but I'm not sure we should uproot the global economy over it.
What they need to do is have a model that shows global warming will lead to soccer taking over as the major sport in the US if not addressed. THEN you'll some actino on the subject...
JEB_Stuart wrote:If he were a true believer, and it really was going to be the end of the world as he declares, then wouldn't he be pouring every dime he has into buying carbon credits, living in a modest home with ample renewable energy sources, and delivering his lectures via things like a webcam or teleconference? That is just my take on it.
Thing is, it isn't the end of the world, and doesn't require a complete lifechange. It represents a range of climate change conditions that will increase exposure to tropical conditions and require many trillions of dollars in capital expenditure to adjust for new weather patterns. It is vastly cheaper to adapt now by lowering emissions.
There's this idea that it either isn't happening, or its utterly vast and requires a complete change of lifestyle... why not a middle position?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dorns Fist wrote:Another balanced article. It had some stuff I hadn't seen yet.
That's worse than the last article, it's just partisan hackery. First it mistakes politics for political will (assuming the difficulties of a global deal reflect popular support for emissions control - which actually has 60% approval worldwide) and goes on to confuse political will with science (whether popular or not, the science remains the science). It then starts fibbing about the leaked emails, claiming the fact that right wing bloggers are scouring the emails is somehow evidence of wrongdoing. If you'd been following the story you'd know by now that the great scandal of the leaked emails involves two quoted sections taken out of context, that basically amount to nothing. Even if you don't read much media there was a thread on it on this forum a couple of days ago.
My point is that making all these draconian changes with what we know now seems ludicrous (to me).
There are plenty of scientist that are doubtful that there is any real evidence that mankind is noticebly changing the Earth's temperature.
No, there isn't. There's a bunch of geologists and the odd physicist that crops up disputing climate change (and among the geologists you can always trace the money back to oil companies), but among the professionals active in the field of climatology there is a 97% agreement that climate change is real and is man made. There is plenty of debate and discussion left to be had about the extent of climate change, the exact impact on local climates and the best way to address the issue.
You never did bother to answer my question about what exactly you'd need to become convinced.
Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.
But if our sun just suddenly explodes, we wont have to worry about it for what...2 minutes? Isnt that how long it takes the sun rays to get here? 2 or 8? dammit now numbers are popping out from my head lol
KingCracker wrote:Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.
You're a primary example of another part of the problem. The incredibly ignorant who have their head in the sand, and are too damn lazy to take the time to even look at the most basic material on the topic required to make even the most elementary informed decisions. Deadweight and nothing else.
It's undeniable that human action is causing environmental changes. The scope and scale is not so clear and a big part of the debate around the whole subject, but ignoring the human impact on the environment, and ways to predict and mitigate what could be coming next is dangerously self-delusional.
KingCracker wrote:Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.
You're a primary example of another part of the problem. The incredibly ignorant who have their head in the sand, and are too damn lazy to take the time to even look at the most basic material on the topic required to make even the most elementary informed decisions. Deadweight and nothing else.
That people who are intentionally ignorant need a slap upside the head?
There's no rational way to look at the climate data and come to the conclusion that it's all part of a natural cycle that'll work itself out. The world isn't in imminent danger of imploding, anything we do to it, the system will eventually regain equilibrium of one sort or another. The only problem is that if we leave the system to its own devices in terms of regaining balance, there's a good chance that 'of one sort or another' has no guarantee of being a good thing for us.
Ignoring the fringe whackos, the reasoning behind the whole 'carbon responsibility' thing is the same reason fast food restaurants have moved away from styrofoam containers and most people throw trash away instead of dumping it out their window. Doing so isn't going to destroy the world, but taking some responsibility undeniably does make the living environment there a better place.
KingCracker wrote:But if our sun just suddenly explodes, we wont have to worry about it for what...2 minutes? Isnt that how long it takes the sun rays to get here? 2 or 8?
About 10, I think. Of course, the sun exploding without having gone through any of the (billion year long) stages that usually precede it would be pretty unusual.
Kilkrazy wrote:I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.
Because they aren't trying to preach the doom of Global Warming to us.
sebster wrote:Thing is, it isn't the end of the world, and doesn't require a complete life change. It represents a range of climate change conditions that will increase exposure to tropical conditions and require many trillions of dollars in capital expenditure to adjust for new weather patterns. It is vastly cheaper to adapt now by lowering emissions.
There's this idea that it either isn't happening, or its utterly vast and requires a complete change of lifestyle... why not a middle position?
Because if you haven't noticed, most people in either side of this debate aren't even considering compromise. Its their way, or off to the gulags with you!
Kilkrazy wrote:I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.
Because they aren't trying to preach the doom of Global Warming to us.
I don't see what's that's got to do with being jealous of Al Gore's wealth. Oil company presidents are continually trying to preach the lack of doom of no global warming to us, while getting rich by investing in oil shares. Why aren't they envied and disliked?
I don't think this is about investment; it's about consumption.
The fact that he's very wealthy means that he can put a lot of carbon dioxide into the air for no good reason and still balance that out by planting a forest or something (and evidently that's what he does). However, if global warming is seriously in risk of killing half a billion people, and he was chosen by God to stop it, that's still pretty half-assed. He could be planting forests and using commercial flights. Hell, he could use the money he got from selling his private jet to buy even more forests. It's hardly asking him to become an ascetic, but if he won't even sacrifice his private jet flights to prevent a catastrophe, then mustn't we conclude he either does not believe in it as strongly as he says or does not care as much as he says he does?
Well, remember in the 70s we were causing a new ice age. Really, we as a species aren't that cool. I have always thought that AGW was a total hoax and fear mongering. It made me mad because it took the focus off of real conservation efforts.
Kilkrazy wrote:But he is putting his money where his mouth is. He is making lots of money off of carbon futures.
I just don't get it.
Corrected your typo.
Did you know carbon futures were invented by Enron?
That is one of the bigger problems, and Al Gore does seem to be no less than a pusher of this current idea crack. The whole idea about him not riding a bicycle around, while blowing silver bubbles out of his butt... well, it really speaks for itself. When fighting a Hydra.... NUKE IT FROM ORBIT! IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE!!!
Dorns Fist wrote:I think it has been obvious for a while that the people that believe global warming is totally man made and going to destroy the planet have been trying to muffle any nonbelievers.
Agreed.
If you were to have all but eliminated humanity entirely 100 or 200 years ago, we'd still be suffering "global warming". The ice age is over, so naturally, temps will increase. The only question is how quickly and to what level.
Dorns Fist wrote:I think it has been obvious for a while that the people that believe global warming is totally man made and going to destroy the planet have been trying to muffle any nonbelievers.
Agreed.
If you were to have all but eliminated humanity entirely 100 or 200 years ago, we'd still be suffering "global warming". The ice age is over, so naturally, temps will increase. The only question is how quickly and to what level.
We are not trying to save the 'planet', we need to maintain an environment in which we can sustain ourselves. I see very little reason why we wouldn't be having an effect on many aspects of the environment. Whether or not all of the data out there is conclusive is a monumental task in itself. Brushing it all aside like your morning coffee is the most important thing in the world (it may be to you however...) is close minded. Not that any of us can actually do something all that amazing about any of this...
If I worked in environmental sciences for multiple decades, I could hope for less than a piece of a part, of a small slice of information leading to conclusive data about such a large, and somewhat overwhelming theory. This, in a nutshell, is why I did not choose to ship of to college early for Marine Biology. I still like whales more than people though... no doubts there.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Because if you haven't noticed, most people in either side of this debate aren't even considering compromise. Its their way, or off to the gulags with you!
I don't think they're the majority, though they are certainly among the loudest. Personally, I'm not going to define this debate by it's least useful participants. We should sideline those folk, whether they're nutters of the 'man's greed is going to kill mother earth' variety or the 'I haven't read anything on this at all but but I don't like hippies so they must be wrong' sort. Instead we need to spend more time listening to people who've really put time and effort into trying to figure out what's going on and how we can fix this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Somnicide wrote:Well, remember in the 70s we were causing a new ice age. Really, we as a species aren't that cool. I have always thought that AGW was a total hoax and fear mongering. It made me mad because it took the focus off of real conservation efforts.
The climate changes periodically, period.
Again*, in the 1970s climatology was a new science with multiple competing models that attempted to predict the impact of man's actions. Over time these models have been debated and the model that matched the ever-increasing pool of data and demonstrated real predictive power has come to be accepted. This is how science works... physics is not invalid because we've advanced beyond Newton's theories.
That's the link for the Stern Review, which has the proud claim of being criticised by the extremes of both camps, so it must be doing something right. It argued climate change could be controlled with expenditure of around 1% of GDP (later increased to 2% due to evidence of climate change occuring faster than originally estimated), and failing to do so would result in an economy 20% smaller than what it would otherwise be. He argues long term economic growth requires emissions control.
I disagree with the contention that not many of the people in charge are reasonable or moderate.
JEB, I think you're being misled by what gets prominence in the media, which is more the shoty people on the extremes. As sebster said, if we're going to have a useful discussion, WE should not focus on those people.
Khornholio wrote:I always thought that the Sun getting hotter was the reason for most of the bizarre weather here on Earth. The ice caps on Mars are gone. There are more storms than ever on Jupiter. The surface of Neptune has got some weird spot action happening. Venus is getting hotter. It's more like solar system warming than global warming. Al Gore? Are you cereal?
For a while now my opinion of global warming has been that it is a natural cycle that is inevitable, not a blight brought upon by man. In my AP human geography class in my freshman year of high school I saw a graph of global climate throughout the existence of the earth and it had periods of lower temperatures and periods of higher. Right now we're just in a natural state of climate and the information in Khornholio's quote seems to be further evidence. As interested as I am in conspiracies I never considered global warming a huge threat in any case, even with evident human contribution.
Deep Throat wrote:For a while now my opinion of global warming has been that it is a natural cycle that is inevitable, not a blight brought upon by man. In my AP human geography class in my freshman year of high school I saw a graph of global climate throughout the existence of the earth and it had periods of lower temperatures and periods of higher. Right now we're just in a natural state of climate and the information in Khornholio's quote seems to be further evidence.
Yes, there are natural heating and cooling cycles. The point is that the current increase in temperature is not a part of any of those cycles, and is occurring at a rate far greater than at any point in history. The only models that predicted the increase in temperature over the last twenty years were those based on carbon emissions.
As interested as I am in conspiracies I never considered global warming a huge threat in any case, even with evident human contribution.
What does an interest in conspiracies have to do with the idea that industrial emissions are having an effect on the global temperature?
sebster wrote:
Yes, there are natural heating and cooling cycles. The point is that the current increase in temperature is not a part of any of those cycles, and is occurring at a rate far greater than at any point in history. The only models that predicted the increase in temperature over the last twenty years were those based on carbon emissions.
The problem is presenting this information in a way that people can understand. I do not claim to fully understand the science behind any of this, but it seems clear enough to me that we are having an impact, regardless of any ludicrous 'solutions' presented for this problem. We have a finite space to live in, i.e. survive in, and many people think of the earth as some sort of invulnerable sandbox that will just put up with our nonsense. If it isn't evident to a person that we have a direct effect on our environment in a tangible way as it is, then I am simply not going to be the one to convince them of a possibly catastrophic/neutrally balanced act of 'retribution'. The fact is, even without global warming, we are still seemingly fethed as all gak from our actions combined anyway... seriously....
We can change all of this no problem within the next half century, but I doubt it highly. Global warming seems like little more than a 'save the whales campaign' to most... which is also extremely important.
What I meant by that is that I would be interested in this one as well if I were concerned about global warming at the time. And now that I know that carbon emission is the main problem now I'm more interested in this discovery revealed in the article.
Hacking these e-mails, that should have been in the public's eye already due to the 
