BF2S Forums Review clears CRU

It's silly to assume that global warming isn't being exaggerated here and there to be used for personal gain, but it's equally silly to completely dismiss the concept of climate change (which the world HAS gone through before and which HAS altered the environment) because you hear some labcoat got a payoff.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's silly to assume that global warming isn't being exaggerated here and there to be used for personal gain, but it's equally silly to completely dismiss the concept of climate change (which the world HAS gone through before and which HAS altered the environment) because you hear some labcoat got a payoff.

Right, but I'm not talking just about here. I am hearing on a regular basis - from politicians who really should know better - "It's all crap, just look at climategate!"

I like this part

It said: "We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain."

....

The review found, "crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behavior that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional."

If the review set the bar at extreme, exceptional or unprofessional behavior, then I would say that the review baked in the result. The review is not finding that the e-mails don't mean what they say, they are finding that the e-mails are not extreme or exceptional or unprofessional. In the US they would call that level or review to be a very low level of scrutiny.

Doesn't this place have a minister for climate change? So its official policy of the govt that climate change is man made. I would think that an objective review would be next to impossible in a place like that.

And what about the earlier reports Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 that basically says that the increase in temperatures that have been measured are within the margin error. and that urbanization can explain changes in temperature.


Anyway, long story short is that pollution is a local problem not a global problem. the push to globalize the solution to local pollution problems is an attempt to do two things. First, to average out the measured pollution over a larger area which is win for polluters and second, its an attempt to prevent the flight of industry from polluted areas where those industries are facing tighter regulation. If pollution regulation gets harmonized globally, then it cuts out the economic advantage that undeveloped areas have, ie Europe gets to keep its industry.

And that brings up the point about how things like carbon taxes or cap and trade will be used by industry to average out their pollution which is something that the EPA is currently now fighting against in Texas. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.ns … 5200626AA6
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase … id:1050852

Personally, if I live in a clean area that's relatively pollution free, I would rather have strong local laws to prevent a coal plant or some other polluter from moving in. I have absolutely no confidence in a global pollution solution.