Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

"Are we all to go with out our needs while those who describe our doom live well ?

Or work together to fix the wrongs and all profit?

What energy are we talking about that will create all these new jobs and the need for oil corporations and untold millions of jobs to be eliminated??


We should know where we are headed and at least have some sort of plan how we are going to make it happen before we do it.

Isn't that what we are paying scientist to do?

Wont there always be a need for some sort of oil?"

Don't worry our useless elected officials will force change on us anyway. Wither it be the garbage Waxman-Markey bill or some other sort of Cap and tax bill. Ask Spain how well thier "green" energy did for them? For every job created in the "green" sector they lost 2 in all others. That is not going to keep the economy a float at the levels these fascist want to keep spending...Supposedly it's for saving the planet so soaking the U.S tax payer to the tune of trillions of dollars and keeping underdeveloped nations poor and underdeveloped will save everybody....What a crock bull stuff. I can show you a video of a lead investors in the CCX that has said it will be a 10 trillion a year profit once the world is pushed to a carbon exchange....Now tell me it's about saving anybody....

Who is going to pay? Sure isn't those at the top that are pushing the doom and gloom. But those like us that will be forced to pay enormous amounts in taxes, price increases, and become slave labor to those that will dictate our future....I know I'm just conspiracy talking right....

There is a topic on the forum about creating a dead zone in a DT for biological purposes, maybe nature has created one in the oceans a milinuim ago and it grows and shrinks all on its own.

They do appear to be naturally occurring, and they do grow and shrink seasonally. However, we also know that they're currently growing in size. One way we know this is from coring sediment samples in the area of the dead zones.

We basically stick a long pipe, just like an oil drilling pipe, down into the sea floor and pull up long cores. They're layered just like tree rings, so by counting layers, going out into the field and measuring annual sedimentation with sediment traps, and confirming the counts with radiometric dating we can tell how old a given layer is. Then we look in those layers for little fossils that tell us about the water quality. Here are some pictures I took of little organisms called foraminiferans from one of these cores I was examining:






By looking at the ratios of these different species and the chemical composition of their shells we can tell things like the salinity, nutrient content, and temperature of the water at the time they were alive. We also look at other little organisms called ostracods that we find in the same cores, that can tell us the same information and acts as confirmation. Ostracods also have little pores on their shells that change size and shape depending on the oxygen content in the water, which allows us to know the oxygen content of the water at the time they were alive.

You can use these two types of fossils from cores in and around the dead zones to determine how widespread nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion were in the past in order to find out if there's some natural cycle of dead zone formation or if the recent increase we've seen is really a new phenomenon.

As is the case with most scientific findings, we don't explain the entire process of determining the finding because the public doesn't generally care or wouldn't understand- they just want to know what it means. The fact that we don't explain how we reached that conclusion doesn't mean that we're just guessing or we haven't done the work to reach it.

I am not fluent enough in that study, but with out the actual numnbers or PPM of the CO2 and O2 that were used in the thesis posted above ,,how can any one scientist make a logial determnation either way?

What was posted was just the abstract or summary of the article. The actual numbers are in the full paper and the papers that it cites as sources.

I dont know , but there has to be more to this then meets the eye ,,,or these scientist would not have conned NOOA .

There's no evidence that the scientists conned anyone. Two separate investigations of Dr. Mann and two separate investigations of the Climatic Research Unit have already determined that and a third investigation of the CRU is due out any time now. I've read the emails myself and nothing in them looks to me like anyone conning anyone else. It looks like a bunch of scientists annoyed with people trying to distort their work.

Can you answer me this ?

If you take away O2 from H2o dont you have H left ??

The O2 in the water that living things use to breathe is dissolve O2, not the molecularly bound oxygen from the H2O molecule.

Ask Spain how well thier "green" energy did for them? For every job created in the "green" sector they lost 2 in all others.

Well here are two answers from Spain:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pa...z%20letter.pdf
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pa...ril%202009.pdf

And another answer from the US about Spain and the study claiming they lost 2 jobs for every green job created.-
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

Yea and those weren't white washes either right? The investigating panel full of known AWG alarmist investigating thier own at the CRU. Penn St investigating thier cash cow for grants and research money..Whatever dude go on being an apologist for scientist conducting themselves in less then honest ways, impropriety throughout, collusion to keep back others research.....Yea nothing wrong there.

The third investigation just came out. Same conclusion- "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt... On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail." http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Originally Posted by rgrking

I just think that climate change is a natural thing that happens in this world. I know we may have contributed to is some, but there have been times when the carbon in the air was much worse than it is now.

I must say that anyone who has studied Geology could say that the climate of this planet has been changing drastically from one extreme to another for millions of years. As I see it, just like the fishies in our tanks, we all have to be ready for the new addition and the new neighbor and we have to be able to deal with it. This earth is a lot more resilient than I believe we give it credit for.

Thought I would throw a little fuel on the fire raging in this thread

Expert credibility in climate change: not all climate research and expertise are equal.

great link techguy

Originally Posted by russianrick

I must say that anyone who has studied Geology could say that the climate of this planet has been changing drastically from one extreme to another for millions of years. As I see it, just like the fishies in our tanks, we all have to be ready for the new addition and the new neighbor and we have to be able to deal with it. This earth is a lot more resilient than I believe we give it credit for.

Any student of Geology would know these changes precipitate mass extinctions.....The earth may survive but that doesn't mean the dominant lifeforms will.

So again I ask ,, what are our options??


The dooms dayers are doing just what the nay sayers are , they are protecting and jockying for a controling position over the worlds future fuel resorces.

Thats what I as a regular person see.

Are we talking about neuclear?

Wind ?
Solar?
Bateries?
Natural gass?


Give me something here that we can debate logicaly.

IMO Neuclear is worse then oil,in 200 years we will have enough waste to fill a area the size of Illinois, then what,, we wait for another 400 years for it to biodegrade,that means by then there will ba a place the size of Austrailia that won tbe inhabitable to humans,, then what , do we just dump it out on the ground,, then what?

Do we dig tunnels and caves ad burry it??
Then what if it leaks out and contaminates the water supply,look at North Korea , I heard since thy tested the nuke under ground they ar experiencing a elevated level of radiation above ground.
So now what?

We are the begining of our great grand kids future, even though they are not yet born they are looking on us to do what is in their best intrest,, we do not own the planet, we are borrowing it from future generations.






What about natural gass ,,,,deadly when ignited under pressure.
Still produces green house gasses.
and hardly safe to have a hose laying around the house to refill the auto.

How will those who rent apartments each have their own refill stations , and do you know how much a semi truck would need to hold ,, folks that is a rolling bomb traveling the hiways right beside you.

Solar may work in the future if the world goes to rail travel ,, but that isnt a viable system for rual areas, Farming or long distance travel or even freight , and we still have the aspect of manufacturing and melting the plates for the batteries and their plastic cassing.

Hydrogen has its posabilities in some geological areas ,, however not practicle in 20 below zero temps.


Wind power,, I like wind power and solar power combinations , they seem to make sense , however not in the transportation or travel industry.

And again industry still needs oil to manufacture and maintain their operations


I agree there is a great deal of people in industry that are trying to show evidence that not one sorce of fuel will sustain their way of life .

That is the 1/2 that the doomsdayers are trying to stifle instead of listen to and help provide options.


Again back to politics and control.


To claim their negativity is one thing,,, but to turn a blind eye on a entire group and way of life is like what BP is doing in the gulf,, there isnt any diference.


If all the doomsdayers are so supportive then turn off your tanks , shut down any and all the power in your homes and your internet,,or switch to solar and total green energy,, shut down your internet business that others use energy to buy form you lead by example,that is what you are telling others to do .

What I would like answerd by the doomsdayers is again , where do we go from here.

In my case I paid nearly 100k USD fro a truck and trailer to provide for my business and support my family, lived on peanuts for several years to pay it off so I could clasify it as a asset and not a long term liablility, who is going to replace it, it is paid for and should be turning a profit.

It sets neked in the drive.


Well not totaly neked ,,it does have a couple LED lights stil on it!!

If some one doesnt offer some pretty good evidence or a solution real soon, it will be going back on the road , just like 100's of thousands of others,, I wont starve so some else can become wealthy.

The scientific comunity has offerd nothing to our family but doom and gloom.

If they wish to acomplish their goals then we await their oferings.
We wont wait long .


If they have none then go back to the labs and geter done.

We are eager to stop the destruction of our future generations garden.

Lead , stop fighting those who paid your way and do your jobs, that is what I would like to say to those who are telling us to go hungry and cold.

JMO

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"

Good post. +1

However,, all that science and opinions have not justified the means to a end of reality.


A begining maybe , but not a end.

At least in the minds of untold millions of people who have no control over where they get electricity or fuel .

Are we listning? ,yes we are , are you ?

List of countries by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can not transform a world over night.

These numbers represent people who wish to work for what they have , not steal it from future kids.

And the wold surely wont end tomorrow , nor will you replace the glaciers , deacidify the oceans or restore the devistation of the rin forest even if we all stop breathig..


Lead by example , stop using the grid for power, stop using automibiles and fossile fuels for tramsportation and stop consuming fossile fuels for cultivating your food , show us a scale of resorces that wont be adversly efected by its consumption,or controled by those producing it. Even more,,, one that is a unlimited and renewable resorce available with out transporting it ..


Do you sugest people cultivate untold thousands of acres of farm land by hand ,they did that years ago and did it by horse and slave, , and how will they get this food transported around the world to those in need ,sailing vessels??

Shall they starve untill this new plan is aplicable??

No mater how much science points to the reason of the worlds demise the doomsdayers are on a agenda of their own merit that share equal and imediate efects then using fossile fuel IMO.