Comments on: More on those climate emails

By: This week’s sign of the non-apocalypse (Vol. 1, No. 2) | Kyle Wingfield

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:56:04 +0000

[...] Climategate saga continues to unfold. The latest chapter involves the apparent cover-up by Phil Jones of the [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:29:04 +0000

“They changed the name from global warming to climate change, because the earth is getting cooler, not warmer.”

No, they call it climate change because it is more encompassing, Since the earth will not warm in a uniform manner (poles will warm up more), the increased temperature gradient will cause more severe weather, tropical cyclones in some areas, increased drought in others, flooding in still others. The name Global Warming does not capture this, hence “Climate Change”. Quite simple really.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:17:00 +0000

Hey all,
So even if Global Warming either is not occurring, or is not being caused by human activity, all of you worrying about how much it will cost you if climate change legislation is enacted should instead consider the investment opportunities that will exist in the many companies that will find ways to profit from cap and trade and CO2 sequestration technologies. In the end many who are crying now about the cost will be the ones that are making it hand over fist. It’s always the way.

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:03:07 +0000

Just the name Al Gore is reason enough not to believe any of this horse squeeze. You’d have to be a maroon to fall for these lies.

By: JackPoynter

JackPoynter — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:54:44 +0000

Short version of longer post which seems to have vanished into the ether:
The IPCC has responded to climaquiddick, which Kyle seems to call this issue. (Did someone die and I missed it?)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/pachauri-discusses-the-climate-files/

The interesting part is that there was a response to the IPCC’s response from one of the delegates to the IPCC. Both pieces are in the above URL.

As a person who has been in information systems since 1966, the comments are in the code are:
1. Not surprising, since they come from an amateur programmer, and
2. Utterly damning with regard to whoever was administrating those projects, from a data integrity, data recoverability, programming version control standpoint, forget what they have to say about AGW.

The net is that, given the amount of money and exposure we have on this subject, the administration of climate science appears to be too important to be left to climate scientists.

By: JackPoynter

JackPoynter — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:33:37 +0000

Testing, delete this if you like, my computer is acting very overburdened this morning.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:38:27 +0000

Linda, I appreciate you thinking differently than I, but you on the other hand, are insulted by someone thinking different than you.

Please pray for yourself. Maybe you can be enlightened to the fact there are many many religions, beliefs, and theories on Religious beliefs.

Some folks believe as Taoists, or Buddhists……these folks don’t pray to a god. They believe all life is intertwined.

You mention you never heard God was a man made idea, if he is not then how was he originated ?

You also have a big issue with China, and think they are not aware of the ecological problems with the earth, and their region, and seemingly don’t care.

I suppose you are unaware of China’s 5-Year $454 Billion Environmental Initiative.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Profiting-From-Chinas-5Year-indie-1632552639.html?x=0&.v=1

Everyone writes and opinion here, perhaps you should be more open minded.

By: Kevin Bodenhammer

Kevin Bodenhammer — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:41:15 +0000

What would be wrong in the first place if the Earth did get warmer? For one thing, people would be burning less fuel to keep warm in the winter time. When I was actually working in a greenhouse, I bought some CO2 tanks to enrich the greenhouse environment. The plants grew twice as tall, and produced more fruit. I cannot believe people, especially scientist, are so stupid.

By: mikey

mikey — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:44:18 +0000

Nice breakdown Kyle, keep up the good work.

The Global Warming Hoax is going down, the REAL environmentalists will have their cause back, enfettered by the very corporations they seek to rein in.

The Truth rises to the top. Eventually.

By: wyoming dan

wyoming dan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:47:55 +0000

enjoyed everyone’s comments, even peter’s, who appears to be diametrically opposed to my viewpoints on every issue raised! As a former orange county, ca. republican, now a wyoming libertarian, I wanted to share a couple of points. #1, Nuclear power was shot down by the left 35 years ago, the so-called environmental movement is directly responsible for the prevalence of “King-Coal” in energy use today. Forget Carbon footprint junk science, Coal has some byproduct, including radiation, that is downright nasty! Lose coal via Nuclear or other alternate energy abd you’ll make everyone happy except the coal producing states and lobbies. #2, I live off grid, using two windmills and some solar, suplemented by a large and expensive propane generator. I don’t bo this because I give a $#%$ about Al Gores agenda, but because—–ready—– IT COSTS ME LESS!
The argument for alternative fuel use must be economic, people don’t change unless it hits their pocketbook. Wihch brings me to my third point, #3 WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL. If the so-called greens and the Rational Anarchists like myself could simply couch our discussions in these terms you would be amazed what this country could dig itself out of. Soo ends the sermon….