What is your helicopter carbon footprint?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fly more often, you can buy two trees!!!
? For the unaware, this is issue is termed additionality. I like the idea of the photography, others also address the issue of verification/auditing:Making woodland carbon your next step with the Woodland Trust's carbon offset scheme.
Good recent programme on Radio 4 about aviation - Costing the Earth: Guilt-Free Flying
- mainly about high altitude travel. Includes a bit of celebrity and a possible return to the old:
BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Costing the Earth, Guilt-Free Flying
And interested piece on charcoal (Biochar - Wikipedia) making a possible comeback:
Economist.com
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the end of the world, but the schemers for Copenhagen are plotting the end of the western economies, - BIG TIME-.
It's not the first time, back in the seventies and often since ,.7 of GDP was mooted as a donation to third worlders from the great democracies.
Anyone thinks those sorts of donations will make third worlders self relaint is quite frankly - jerking themself.
Luckily for the US of A they had a clear thinking President who signed NUTHIN' at KYOTO or since. IF they now sign at copenhagen they can therefore set their own rules.
WE are not so lucky, we did have a clear thinker, non signer head of state, replaced with a 'friend to everyone' head of state who has since signed which means that if WE sign at Copehagen then WE will have to endure the fine print from Kyoto.
Meaning that agriculture will be finished here. No more mustering. That should make Frank happy, I say with forked tongue to all of those gurus who said that Frank never wanted his machines to go mustering in the first place??
Well you guys, gurus, suck eggs, three or four hundred machines out of work, no more spare parts, no more new machines, no more dollars from good ol OZ into Franks pocket. Tough Eh?
Quite frankly i am scared absolutely witless by the discussions that are going on in the lead up to Copehagen. I would much rather face an EOL predicted by a lunatic as passenger and switch caretaker, at any time, in very tough terrain.
I know that I and anyone else that has been around me for awhile including pretty much most of this networks clientele, would make the best of it under the circumstances.
We will not have the opportunity under Copenhagen rules to sort ourselves at all, freefall will continue without collective input.
Reading of the www.breakfastpolitics.com may enlighten those who want to, to see just how frightened many of our top columnists are also.
Andrew bolt makes good reading as do many others.
Yes perhaps we should go much more nuclear, and for Dave Jacksons sake I must copy some photograps, when I have the time to, of some great bolts that are now used to bolt down the heads on the steam generators of nuclear power stations. they may be very useful in his futuristic designs.
In the meantime if all of the servicing helicopters for the big conference were grounded during the Copenhagen talks it may serve as a small reminder just how we all have to live together.
The ice cap is not melting, the polar bears are not dying and scaring kids in British schools is just dead wrong.
cheers tet
It's not the first time, back in the seventies and often since ,.7 of GDP was mooted as a donation to third worlders from the great democracies.
Anyone thinks those sorts of donations will make third worlders self relaint is quite frankly - jerking themself.
Luckily for the US of A they had a clear thinking President who signed NUTHIN' at KYOTO or since. IF they now sign at copenhagen they can therefore set their own rules.
WE are not so lucky, we did have a clear thinker, non signer head of state, replaced with a 'friend to everyone' head of state who has since signed which means that if WE sign at Copehagen then WE will have to endure the fine print from Kyoto.
Meaning that agriculture will be finished here. No more mustering. That should make Frank happy, I say with forked tongue to all of those gurus who said that Frank never wanted his machines to go mustering in the first place??
Well you guys, gurus, suck eggs, three or four hundred machines out of work, no more spare parts, no more new machines, no more dollars from good ol OZ into Franks pocket. Tough Eh?
Quite frankly i am scared absolutely witless by the discussions that are going on in the lead up to Copehagen. I would much rather face an EOL predicted by a lunatic as passenger and switch caretaker, at any time, in very tough terrain.
I know that I and anyone else that has been around me for awhile including pretty much most of this networks clientele, would make the best of it under the circumstances.
We will not have the opportunity under Copenhagen rules to sort ourselves at all, freefall will continue without collective input.
Reading of the www.breakfastpolitics.com may enlighten those who want to, to see just how frightened many of our top columnists are also.
Andrew bolt makes good reading as do many others.
Yes perhaps we should go much more nuclear, and for Dave Jacksons sake I must copy some photograps, when I have the time to, of some great bolts that are now used to bolt down the heads on the steam generators of nuclear power stations. they may be very useful in his futuristic designs.
In the meantime if all of the servicing helicopters for the big conference were grounded during the Copenhagen talks it may serve as a small reminder just how we all have to live together.
The ice cap is not melting, the polar bears are not dying and scaring kids in British schools is just dead wrong.
cheers tet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who gives a sh1t - I can assure you that the Western World has bigger problems on it's hands outside of global warming or climate change or what ever else the trendy, lefty side can dream up. The end of the Western World will occur within the next 100 years unless we take a very serious look at ourselves.
GAGS
E86
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who gives a sh1t -
the Western World has bigger problems on it's hands outside of global warming or climate change
Specifically, and using the same observation, you may have seen a press release from the British ministry of Health, about 14 months back that detailed that the issue of people gluttoning themselves with trans-fats was the worst dilemma that Britain faced, worse even and I quote, “than the global warming crisis”.
Sorry Cags, my point is that it could appear that we are led by a person whose gullibility (possibly only for a self serving world stage appointment euphoric role) is pointedly being exploited by those in Copenhagen to be there as, “a friend of the chair”, another quote.
If, Australia delivers a signing of .7% of GDP, that is seven billion per year that our economy has to cough up or be fined large portions if we don’t????
It is not .7% of the surplus that we used to enjoy and be lavishly treated with under the responsible Costello treasury leadership which was around 7billion PA. I won’t bother to talk about the current recurring deficits.
Where is the money to come from for R & D, HEMS, rides up and down the muddy Yarra, the military, fire fighting, schools, medicine, and the list is long. Forget the super subs - another vote catching dream, -the camel shooting - more gullible votes, disease, and quarantine controls- let’s not go there.
For you sake and if I may indulge just a little more of the hospitality of the mods I’ll insert a quote from another letter, based on science that crossed my desk recently.
Oh, and no I don’t live anywhere near Toorak, so I certainly ain't a trendy, or a lefty. They are mostly now in the greenie movement, you will also have observed I am sure, now that “the wall“ has been torn down and they were flushed out.
"AS global warming hysteria rises to a crescendo ahead of the Liberal Party meeting this weekend I would like to add just two words: ‘Henry’s Law’ for those who have forgotten more chemistry than they were ever taught. Wikipedia relates: “In chemistry, Henry’s law is one of the gas laws, formulated by William Henry in 1803.”
It states: “At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid – an equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid at a particular temperature is proportional to the pressure of that gas above the liquid.”
The science fact is that the atmospheric level of CO2 is always in balance with the sea temperature as postulated by William Henry two centuries ago. It does not matter how much CO2 is pumped into the air, it will always find an equilibrium concentration as a function of the sea temperature
In other words, if the sea temperature rises, so will the atmospheric concentration of CO2 – regardless of whether any extra CO2 has been produced on Earth. Similarly the CO2 concentration in air will fall when the sea temperature falls – regardless of the amount of CO2 produced on earth.
This happens because CO2 entering the sea forms into the aqueous, then bicarbonate and then carbonate radicals. To come back from the bicarbonate state the sea temperature would have to rise above 50 deg C and to about 700 deg C for the carbonate to disassociate. This leaves only the aqueous component of CO2 in the sea available for re-release to the atmosphere. This component’s concentration is solely dependent on sea temperature and the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2.
It is therefore fair to say that CO2 is very, very, very, soluble in sea water. The last two ‘verys’ form into a one-way street capturing CO2 forever and a day – a bottomless pit if you like. The sea will never get super saturated with CO2, because the bicarbonate and carbonate ions have myriad end uses in the oceans most of which end up as calcium carbonate or free carbon. Of all the problems facing this world CO2 is not one of them.
I am surprised from all the discussion held on this subject no one I have come across has focused on the solubility aspects of CO2. This is completely fundamental to the whole global warming debate’. – Name withheld.
Hopefully one day we will meet and you will be able to thank me for giving you the lift under the ear that I think you need right now to help progress this nation for our descendants, or wilt and leave it the mess that the Copenhagen talk fest could deliver.
cheers tet
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sydney, Oz.
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you TET.. there is a lot of money to be made and lost through 'climate change'.
You would have seen recently that:
The Victorian branch of the United Firefighters Union is also calling for a “global warming allowance” for the city’s 1600 firefighters, “in recognition of the increased work and risk to firefighters as a result of global warming”.
A good talk on this by Lord Monckton (aside from his sense of humour)
(didn't see it linked before)
You would have seen recently that:
The Victorian branch of the United Firefighters Union is also calling for a “global warming allowance” for the city’s 1600 firefighters, “in recognition of the increased work and risk to firefighters as a result of global warming”.
A good talk on this by Lord Monckton (aside from his sense of humour)
(didn't see it linked before)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TET,
My first line did not refer to your post. I think, if I follow your train, we are in entire agreement on the subject. Monckton indicates that Copenhagen is the first step towards a world government which will eventually dictate policy, particulary concerning distribution of wealth, to subservient national governments.
GAGS
E86
My first line did not refer to your post. I think, if I follow your train, we are in entire agreement on the subject. Monckton indicates that Copenhagen is the first step towards a world government which will eventually dictate policy, particulary concerning distribution of wealth, to subservient national governments.
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Langley, B.C. Canada
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon footprint.......aaahahahahha !!!
Lets see....1 crane (S64E) in a 60 minute cyle burns 2,000 ltrs. of fuel, and we will rip approx. 400,000 lbs of timber off the hill !!!! Plus our crew trucks, loaders, processors, and loading trucks.......I love our carbon footprint.....aaahahahaha !!!
Lets see....1 crane (S64E) in a 60 minute cyle burns 2,000 ltrs. of fuel, and we will rip approx. 400,000 lbs of timber off the hill !!!! Plus our crew trucks, loaders, processors, and loading trucks.......I love our carbon footprint.....aaahahahaha !!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see....1 crane (S64E) in a 60 minute cyle burns 2,000 ltrs. of fuel, and we will rip approx. 400,000 lbs of timber off the hill !!!! Plus our crew trucks, loaders, processors, and loading trucks.......I love our carbon footprint...
If you love it so much, you would presumably take a more leisurely approach to your lifting? I imagine Adam Smith's invisible hand would shoo you away giving you the opportunity to work elsewhere if you did this?
You could exercise your maths skills a bit more and work out the CDE per cubic metre of sustainable (?) lumber including the harvesting + processing + transport to the (range of) end customers. The price mechanism already contains strong elements of this calculation. It would be interesting to see how much it differs from other forms of agriculture, many of which will be significant users of fertilizer and pesticides.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monckton, yes I must say I enjoyed him far more than Professor Garnault.
He is the one who reckons that we should be farming Kangaroos. Now many of us have tried to muster kangaroos with varying degrees of failure, but he didn’t have any clues or suggestions as to how we might be able to commercially operate the animals in a herd structure such as we do with bovines, what a dill.
Neither did he touch on just what the major beef countries of the world such as USA, Argentina, Brazil and China, I think in that order of ascendency from 123million to about 178m head, compared to our lousy 27m, were going to do with their cows farts. And, none of those countries have any Kangaroos to turn to!
Murdoch at the moment is also making interesting reading, very interesting reading.
Cheers tet
He is the one who reckons that we should be farming Kangaroos. Now many of us have tried to muster kangaroos with varying degrees of failure, but he didn’t have any clues or suggestions as to how we might be able to commercially operate the animals in a herd structure such as we do with bovines, what a dill.
Neither did he touch on just what the major beef countries of the world such as USA, Argentina, Brazil and China, I think in that order of ascendency from 123million to about 178m head, compared to our lousy 27m, were going to do with their cows farts. And, none of those countries have any Kangaroos to turn to!
Murdoch at the moment is also making interesting reading, very interesting reading.
Cheers tet
How is that "consensus" working out for you true believers? Climategate, a tempest in a teapot or the tip of the iceberg so to speak?
I am truly interested in what the true believers think.
Pajamas Media Fast Facts About Climategate
I am truly interested in what the true believers think.
Pajamas Media Fast Facts About Climategate
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climate?
What saddens me about the daft lot currently plotting away in Copenhagen is their refusal to consider what is observable around them. As a graduate ex Geomorphologist, I won't trot out any of a few hundred technical facts, but why don't these guys ask themselves why ... just ten thousand years ago, you could walk from England to France on the ice sheet. Not too many artificial C02 producers around then.
Rising sea levels? Then take a drive down to Devon. Ask yourself why the river valleys are 'drowned' something that started around a million years ago as the land sank.
Sure the water level is rising in the Thames Estuary ... About one tenth of an inch a year due to the land sinking as it has done since the ice left. Ask the manager of the Thames Barrier.
Yes - the climate is changing. It would be hard to believe if it remained static and there's nothing in nature that I can think of that does that. We're currently in the fourth 'integlacial' period and heading for some warmth which should please the inhabitants of Scandinavia!
Heaven help our pockets once these 'consensus' guys get their way and as I've noted on this subject before, only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can change the nature of this planet. Yes surely let us clean up our act and reduce our polution but not because we're warming up the atmosphere.
And hey ... soon the Vikings will be able to resume the agricultural lifestyle they once enjoyed in Greenland!
Mandatory reading .... Global Warming. ISBN 978-1-59698-501-8 by Chris Horner.
Chill out all.
Dennis K
Rising sea levels? Then take a drive down to Devon. Ask yourself why the river valleys are 'drowned' something that started around a million years ago as the land sank.
Sure the water level is rising in the Thames Estuary ... About one tenth of an inch a year due to the land sinking as it has done since the ice left. Ask the manager of the Thames Barrier.
Yes - the climate is changing. It would be hard to believe if it remained static and there's nothing in nature that I can think of that does that. We're currently in the fourth 'integlacial' period and heading for some warmth which should please the inhabitants of Scandinavia!
Heaven help our pockets once these 'consensus' guys get their way and as I've noted on this subject before, only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can change the nature of this planet. Yes surely let us clean up our act and reduce our polution but not because we're warming up the atmosphere.
And hey ... soon the Vikings will be able to resume the agricultural lifestyle they once enjoyed in Greenland!
Mandatory reading .... Global Warming. ISBN 978-1-59698-501-8 by Chris Horner.
Chill out all.
Dennis K
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a scientist tried to tell you the right way to trim your helicopter during an autorotation or how to lower the collective to shoot an approach while you were flying along...wouldn't you rather he keep his opinions to himself and point out that he was out of his depth?
Scientists probably have the same reaction to non-scientists pontificating about their body of work.
Bet ya don't do your own brain surgery either.
Scientists probably have the same reaction to non-scientists pontificating about their body of work.
Bet ya don't do your own brain surgery either.
Sebastian
Would you take the word of a "scientist" that had been caught red-handed, manipulating data, hiding data and excluding dissent? That sounds more like a High Priest not a scientist to me.
Would you take the word of a "scientist" that had been caught red-handed, manipulating data, hiding data and excluding dissent? That sounds more like a High Priest not a scientist to me.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I'd take the word of the thousands of other scientists in the field who largely agree AGW is reality. I'd certainly side with them over the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, scientists are not priests, many are in the employ of various organisations with entrenched views on certain subjects, and are as predisposed as the rest of the general population to political views/theories etc. (Mind you, even priests are not infallible these days). 
I'm not a convert on the whole climate change as a result of human activity theory. I'll give you that the temperature is warming, I'll give you that sea levels are rising, but I'm not convinced that it's as a result of human activity, and I'm not convinced that it's provable at the minute!! I also resent the propaganda campaign that lines me up with the right wing Fox infotainment channel for having this view. The case has not been made that global warming is as a result of human activity, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm a fairly lefty sort of bloke).
What we appear to have now, is a sort of eco religion belief thing going on, maybe replacing the demise in traditional religions? A belief has been postulated, the good and righteous have rowed in behind it, so it must be true. The evil henchmen of the world oppose it (Hannity and other clowns) so reinforcing the position of the good and right.
That being said, the resources we have available are finite and I do believe conservation of these resources is the way to go, including reducing pollutants, because it's 'the right thing to do'. Pissing away everything you have is not a prudent way to manage anything, even if you believe you have unlimited reserves and they are yours to do with as you please.
As an aside, to my shame, in Ireland we have 'The Greens' in Government, and anyone in an different country I would caution you against voting for them in your next election. In a country like Ireland, we have an extremely limited impact on the global climate, however once we had this lot in power, they were intent on implementing various vanity policies to demonstrate how big their weenies were in the green world. There is no point in crippling your own economy and imposing punitive 'carbon' taxes on your own population, when we are a minor player in the global pollution stakes and the action is pointless other than causing hardship to your population (and bigging yourself up in the green world, yo!).
In the meantime, I will continue to drive my diesel car (more economical, easier to recycle and containing less precious metals than a Prius), recycle my various household bits and bobs, compost my food waste etc...
I'm not a convert on the whole climate change as a result of human activity theory. I'll give you that the temperature is warming, I'll give you that sea levels are rising, but I'm not convinced that it's as a result of human activity, and I'm not convinced that it's provable at the minute!! I also resent the propaganda campaign that lines me up with the right wing Fox infotainment channel for having this view. The case has not been made that global warming is as a result of human activity, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm a fairly lefty sort of bloke).
What we appear to have now, is a sort of eco religion belief thing going on, maybe replacing the demise in traditional religions? A belief has been postulated, the good and righteous have rowed in behind it, so it must be true. The evil henchmen of the world oppose it (Hannity and other clowns) so reinforcing the position of the good and right.
That being said, the resources we have available are finite and I do believe conservation of these resources is the way to go, including reducing pollutants, because it's 'the right thing to do'. Pissing away everything you have is not a prudent way to manage anything, even if you believe you have unlimited reserves and they are yours to do with as you please.
As an aside, to my shame, in Ireland we have 'The Greens' in Government, and anyone in an different country I would caution you against voting for them in your next election. In a country like Ireland, we have an extremely limited impact on the global climate, however once we had this lot in power, they were intent on implementing various vanity policies to demonstrate how big their weenies were in the green world. There is no point in crippling your own economy and imposing punitive 'carbon' taxes on your own population, when we are a minor player in the global pollution stakes and the action is pointless other than causing hardship to your population (and bigging yourself up in the green world, yo!).
In the meantime, I will continue to drive my diesel car (more economical, easier to recycle and containing less precious metals than a Prius), recycle my various household bits and bobs, compost my food waste etc...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said Dennis & tu154
Unfortunately this sort of sensible thinking doesn't fit well with our leaders and their evil overt taxation plans designed to pay for the next jolly...sorry summit...at the evangelical church of climate change
Religion was a means of controlling the masses and this is no different, given most people are sheep (especially 'free-thinking' students who express their individuality by jointly conforming to a set of beliefs - which are only convenient when you are a student)...I wonder if it will be as popular as the Jedi Religion....
On the subject of science, modelling can produce whatever results you want it to and invariably continued funding usually depends on satisfying an objective or pre-requisite point of view. It is far easier to review, validate and conform than question results, challenge methodology or provide an alternate point of view.
Blue Skies,
D
Unfortunately this sort of sensible thinking doesn't fit well with our leaders and their evil overt taxation plans designed to pay for the next jolly...sorry summit...at the evangelical church of climate change
Religion was a means of controlling the masses and this is no different, given most people are sheep (especially 'free-thinking' students who express their individuality by jointly conforming to a set of beliefs - which are only convenient when you are a student)...I wonder if it will be as popular as the Jedi Religion....
On the subject of science, modelling can produce whatever results you want it to and invariably continued funding usually depends on satisfying an objective or pre-requisite point of view. It is far easier to review, validate and conform than question results, challenge methodology or provide an alternate point of view.
Blue Skies,
D
Last edited by s1lverback; 8th Dec 2009 at 23:06.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you just described...
Big gas guzzling car, private jet, huge mansion, gigantic personal carbon footprint. By God you have just described the Nobel Prize winner for hypocrisy Al "I'm gonna make a billion on this Shi*" Gore. Not to mention all the other hypocrits who falsified the information and are currently gliding in their limos after departing their private jets at the Copenhagen summit. Want to know what the real problem is: we have to many scientists in the world. They are all trying to justify their existence and the only way they can do it is to forget any scientfic studies and just agree with the guy who hands out the grants. If they do that they will keep the cushy job and all the health care and retirement bennies that come with it. If you want to know who is really destroying the planet, it is the so called scientists who march in lock step. No balls to contradict the false info. My helicopters carbon footprint? who cares. We'll just charge the customers more for the same service and pass the cost on to the nations rich. Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a lot of problems, but too many scientists aren't among them. If anything, the problem we have in the west is nobody really pursues the physical sciences anymore...go to the grad depts at major institutions and see how many students from the ME and Asia are found compared to native westerners. We're falling behind the Chinese in a big hurry re: engineering and physical sciences.
Tu, I'm with you on conservation (I make my own diesel fuel from veggie oil, and would love to find an aviation application)--if we drove more efficient vehicles, we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about what the Saddam Husseins of the world were up to. But if you need further convincing, I suggest you start here and consider the nuts and bolts of the science behind GHGs as climate forcings (and you'll note nothing in the CRU illegally obtained emails really impacts any of the basic premises in any substantial way, even if we were to assume the worst...and in context the emails people are wailing about don't really mean what they think they mean). The science is largely incontrovertible upon even a cursory examination, and even if we hoist out on their petards the two or three scientists referenced in the ILLEGALLY hacked emails and CRU's entire database, the conclusions aren't effected substantially (the NASA GISSTEMP data sets largely corroborate their findings)...the IPCC conclusions are, from a scientific point of view, utterly sound. Those objecting typically have a political motive somewhat akin to "well, I don't want to have to change any of my behaviors in any substantive way".
I do like pulling up at a stoplight in my F350 4x4 Powerstroke diesel running on veggie fuel and seeing smug looks from the weenie in the Prius; little does he know I'm far more carbon neutral than he is.
Tu, I'm with you on conservation (I make my own diesel fuel from veggie oil, and would love to find an aviation application)--if we drove more efficient vehicles, we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about what the Saddam Husseins of the world were up to. But if you need further convincing, I suggest you start here and consider the nuts and bolts of the science behind GHGs as climate forcings (and you'll note nothing in the CRU illegally obtained emails really impacts any of the basic premises in any substantial way, even if we were to assume the worst...and in context the emails people are wailing about don't really mean what they think they mean). The science is largely incontrovertible upon even a cursory examination, and even if we hoist out on their petards the two or three scientists referenced in the ILLEGALLY hacked emails and CRU's entire database, the conclusions aren't effected substantially (the NASA GISSTEMP data sets largely corroborate their findings)...the IPCC conclusions are, from a scientific point of view, utterly sound. Those objecting typically have a political motive somewhat akin to "well, I don't want to have to change any of my behaviors in any substantive way".
I do like pulling up at a stoplight in my F350 4x4 Powerstroke diesel running on veggie fuel and seeing smug looks from the weenie in the Prius; little does he know I'm far more carbon neutral than he is.
Sebastian...
Since you obviously didn't have either the time or inclination to examine my link, I will waste the bandwidth and post it for you. The "science" is far from settled. This is not about one or two rogue scientists but it addresses the foundations of the scientific debate. Follow the money.
What It’s About
On the night of November 19, a compressed file containing 1,073 emails and almost 3,600 other files mysteriously appeared on a download site in Siberia. These emails and files had somehow been taken from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. This became known as Climategate.
The CRU and its director, Dr. Phil Jones, are important because the CRU is a central point for data collection, storage, and analysis of climate data. And Dr. Jones is one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 report, which is the basis for much of the current political drive for CO2 limits.
The theory IPCC favors for climate change is that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm beyond what would naturally happen.
The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:
If you wish to learn more about Climategate, please see our coverage at PJTV.
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at Charles R Martin :, and on his blog at Explorations.
Since you obviously didn't have either the time or inclination to examine my link, I will waste the bandwidth and post it for you. The "science" is far from settled. This is not about one or two rogue scientists but it addresses the foundations of the scientific debate. Follow the money.
What It’s About
On the night of November 19, a compressed file containing 1,073 emails and almost 3,600 other files mysteriously appeared on a download site in Siberia. These emails and files had somehow been taken from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. This became known as Climategate.
The CRU and its director, Dr. Phil Jones, are important because the CRU is a central point for data collection, storage, and analysis of climate data. And Dr. Jones is one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 report, which is the basis for much of the current political drive for CO2 limits.
The theory IPCC favors for climate change is that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm beyond what would naturally happen.
The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:
- to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
- to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
- to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
- The consensus is not scientific as much as it is political.
What we find out from the emails is that Jones and a number of others were using underhanded manipulations to suppress scientific publications that disagreed with the CO2-caused AGW theory. There is no scientific consensus if all the science isn’t being considered.
- There’s a difference between “global warming,” “anthropogenic (caused by humans) global warming,” and “anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2.”
- The Climategate files don’t call global warming into question, but they make some of the science of anthropogenic global warming more suspect, and they make it clear that “forcings” other than CO2 have not been fairly considered.
- There has clearly been significant warming in the last 400 years — since the “Little Ice Age”. That’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.
- There is good reason to believe that humans may be accounting for some warming — and some cooling, for that matter. But we don’t know how much.
- The case for all or most of the warming being due to CO2 was not as unquestionable as it was presented to be, and from the Climategate files we know that even that case was being slanted significantly.
- … and the program codes will be yielding new surprises for a while to come.
- Science invariably has politics involved. That’s because science is invariably done by people.
- The key to science is “trust but verify”: you trust the science because you are assured you can verify it if necessary. The Climategate files show the CRU clique wanted to be trusted, but didn’t want to be verified.
- The science was being used politically long before we think it was.
- “Global warming” was a big source of grants and funding.
- “Global warming scientists” got to go to all the best conferences. (Tahiti? Gstaad?)
- Ultimately, there are billions of dollars to be made off of “global warming.”
If you wish to learn more about Climategate, please see our coverage at PJTV.
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at Charles R Martin :, and on his blog at Explorations.