[Grizzly]

This is how Forbes describes it.

This is the actual e-mail:

From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below [1]http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met-nerc_agreement.html I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don’t want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don’t have copies to hand. I also don’t want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael.

[watsisname]

Apparently, having the validity of the data confirmed by an independent study by a former climate skeptic isn't enough for some people.

[Nuke]

feed the hippies to the polar bears, problem solved!

[Spicious]

feed the hippies science deniers to the polar bears, problem solved!

FTFY

[Dragon]

I wish this "global warming" actually started showing in Poland. If anything, the winters are colder than before. And I hate cold, common cold, snow on the driveway, ice on a driveway, ice on the sidewalks and that snow-salt-sand thing that's lies everywhere in the city. Not to mention snowstorms, hailstorms, glaze, cold wind and snow-and-rain storms. And I also hate freezing when waiting for a tram or bus, on a cold, metal bench (or standing, I don't know what's worse). The only thing good about winter are Xmas and winter holidays.[winter rant]
I'd be glad if there were no sub-zero temperatures in here through the whole year. A perfect place for me would be where temperatures are always double-digit, and on the plus side.

[stinkyFeet]

How come I only hear stuff about global warming during winter?

[Nuke]

1: why the **** are they still calling it global warming. one of the worst things science can do is mis-name something.
2: why do people seem to think the environment is supposed to be static? it never was, dinosaurs wouldn't be able to breathe our air, for example. if a species is incapable of adapting to the environment, then it should serve evolution by going extinct. it doesn't matter if were the ones changing the climate. algae, and plants did that long ago, and they didnt have hippie cults protesting the change. were reaping the benefits of that. if anyone is denying science its the people who think that we should use our technology to lock down a fixed climate cycle, stopping the iterative process of evolution and climate. if we make out environment unsurvivable then we will serve evolution by going extinct, earning us a species wide darwin award? dont you just want that award? i think it would be easier to just lob nukes at each other, but due to lack of madness in the current political theater i dont think thats gonna happen any time soon

feed the hippies science deniers to the polar bears, problem solved!

FTFY

i can care less about the environment. my long term plans would **** it up anyway. i was thinking more about the hippy problem. hippies dont care about actual science. they protest things without actual doing any real reserch. they ***** about the climate and try to make the government automagically solve the problem for them. i see hippies polute, waste resources, and carry out guilt-reduction instead of actually adopting pro-climate behaviors. stop the hippies before its too late! nuke the hippies!!!

[karajorma]

Apparently, having the validity of the data confirmed by an independent study by a former climate skeptic isn't enough for some people.

You think those "scientists" were going to be willing to accept evidence that contradicts their hypothesis? That's not how science works! Science works by coming up with an idea you personally like and then refusing to listen to anything that contradicts you!


......oh wait a second, it's early in the morning and I wrote science when I meant to write "being an arsehole"

[QuantumDelta]

Well, overall it IS global warming, but climate change is the better term for people to understand, since their climate may not necessarily become warmer.

[Nuke]

"climate change" is just as bad a term, this would imply that climate is not supposed to change. global warming is fuzzy and oversimplifies the issue. i still think we will hit the carbon wall before we cause any irreversible damage.

[QuantumDelta]

Very unlikely when you consider how multiplicative most warming factors are.

Realistically, without some major catastrophe that destroys our ability to produce green house effectors and impact environments as prolifically as we are currently I don't see us fixing it in time.

I'm not talking about a situation like Venus, but enough of a situation that the life style that we westerners have right now? - it's not sustainable, infinite alternate power or otherwise.

Bulldozing our way through the problem with tech is more likely than fixing it by emission reductions right now imo.

[Nuke]

we could just nuke the ice caps

[watsisname]

why the **** are they still calling it global warming. one of the worst things science can do is mis-name something.

I dunno, for describing the basic physical principles at work I think it's an OK term.  If you increase greenhouse gas concentrations in a planets atmosphere (and if the atmosphere is transparent to shortwave radiation) then the global surface equilibrium temperature increases.  Without its greenhouse atmosphere, Earth's equilibrium temperature would be a frigid 255K (-18°C).

Of course when discussing the details of what happens to our climate given the current situation, things are much more complex -- hence why we started using the term 'climate change', which as you point out still leaves room for misinterpretation.

What would you prefer to name it?

[Bobboau]

"energy retention" maybe?

[karajorma]

Sounds like something you'd take Carbon-Lax to cure.


I'd suggest renaming it to Human Stupidity. It works perfectly as a name. "In recent news the governments of the world have agreed to a series of measures that experts say will do very little to curb Human Stupidity" Even better it works for the so-called sceptics too by making their naive pronouncements seem as ridiculous as they actually are.  "I don't believe in Human Stupidity, I think the change in the word's temperature is linked to sunspots"

[TwentyPercentCooler]

I would name it "Climate Destabilization." Really brings the human element to light.

[watsisname]

Sounds like something you'd take Carbon-Lax to cure.


I'd suggest renaming it to Human Stupidity. It works perfectly as a name. "In recent news the governments of the world have agreed to a series of measures that experts say will do very little to curb Human Stupidity" Even better it works for the so-called sceptics too by making their naive pronouncements seem as ridiculous as they actually are.  "I don't believe in Human Stupidity, I think the change in the word's temperature is linked to sunspots"

"Human Stupidity is good for the plants and will make the earth a more comfortable place!"

[ssmit132]

I would name it "Climate Destabilization." Really brings the human element to light.

Depends what you mean by "destabilization"; climate changes caused by, for example, a supervolcanic eruption or a large meteor impact would be "destabilization" in a way (and as far as I know those cannot be caused by humans at our current level of technology).

[Dragon]

Well, it's not like it isn't accepted that volcanic eruptions contribute to the "Global Warming" or whatever you want to name it.
And in fact, scientists I know about agree that the climate is indeed warming up and changing, but it's perfectly natural. It's just that the people are listening to those backed by big corporations, for which the whole issue is just another way to make money. The same corporations make sure that people know and care about it.
We had an Ice Age relatively recently. After it, the climate started warming up. That process is simply not finished yet, climate will be getting warmer just like it did after every other Ice Age.

Still, it's a problem. One we can't remedy with stupid limits on CO2 emission (which only ruin the economy because of how much they cost). What we have to do is to strengthen the existing dams and build new ones to prevent the sea from flooding places that are below it's level and near the coast, as it's one of the most dangerous side-effects of the warming. Sea level will continue to rise, as it did last time we've had an Ice Age. Once, it was possible to walk from Russia to Alaska. Nobody is complaining about not being able to do that anymore (and there some people who are most likely quite happy about that). Sea level had risen since then, and will continue to do so. We need to adapt, not change the nature. Not yet, at least.

[karajorma]

Well, it's not like it isn't accepted that volcanic eruptions contribute to the "Global Warming" or whatever you want to name it.

Contribute as in having the exact opposite effect?