On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:14 -0800, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0912...2009.1157.html

In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has come
out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center, I can
not believe a word of this article.

If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

It may be 100% correct it may be 100% false, I choose to believe it is
false. Any conclusion about climate that is based on the idea of man
made global warming now must be viewed with a very skeptical eye.

Consider that human populations have grown at least four-fold since the
start of the Industrial Revolution (in the UK from an estimated 12-16
million to the current 66 million) and the energy used per person has
increased much more (average then: their own muscle power + cooking fuel
+ a draft animal if they were well off. Average now round 20-30 MW/year
in the West). Bearing in mind that nothing like this has ever happened
before, can you really stand there with a straight face and say this
energy use explosion can have no possible impact?

A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
public let alone their peers.

The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.

The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and future
trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.

Quite. How about telling that to the fossil fuel companies, OPEC and the
USGS - all of whom have been just as forthcoming and truthful about the
side effects of burning carbon compounds that were last above ground
during the Carboniferous era as they were about lead or the tobacco
companies were about smoking.

If you don't believe the science behind global warming you'd better
believe the coming energy crisis. Realise, too, that almost everything
being talked about and worked on to reduce carbon emissions, from
renewables to reducing energy use, will also serve us in good stead when
fossil fuels become unavailable to the average person.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |