Are the ClimateGate emails and documents significant?

Address to the Colorado Mining Association by Lawrence Solomon. Feb 25 2010

http://www.wopular.com/putting-climategate-perspective

Excerpt;

The ClimateGate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had suspected.

• They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.
• They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted. That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced the sack.
• They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top tier journals.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

The scientists at the heart of the ClimateGate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, massages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others.

The questions that have to be asked are;
1. If the science is settled and so many scientists agree that it is, why is there so much effort to stifle contrary views?
2. If it is certain that the planetary temperatures are rising, why is there a need to manipulate the temperature readings.
3 Why has it been necessary for the temperature monitoring stations to have been so carefully chosen that colder stations are ignored
where new stations in warmer climates have been introduced? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

Indeed rehctub, you make a good point. I'm actually surprised there has been little effort into investigating how to collect carbon vapor and try to convert it back into a solid (possibly refinable as we use a LOT of carbon-based products).

(and my plan was to convert domestically but still sell the product as a power source abroad)

Does it really matter?

We're all doomed anyway. Soon the oceans are going to swamp us for ever, the glaciers are going to cover the remaining highlands, which are now low lands. Anyone left afloat will be blown away by huge typhoons. The moon is going to swell because the micro organisms responsible for all that green cheese are growing at an unprecedented rate due to the warming. The moon will grow so large it will touch the earth and look like a huge pimple just before bursting all over some huge galactic mirror in another galaxy, signaling to distant aliens something is up with planet earth.

We past the point of no return not to long ago and now there's no stopping the apocalypse that is almost upon us. Discussing a hypothetical now is just speeding our demise! I suggest all take their last breath in and not exhale, for to exhale would ensure instant death to us all. The longer we can hold on the more chance we have of the aliens arriving before our complete demise; hopefully saving us from the bumbling wannabees pretending to be our great rulers. Without these fraudsters being held to account by being left behind, humanity will not stand a second chance!

The economic cost will have to be borne. To ignore the likely causes of climate change, because we think our economy is more important, is to miss the point that "our economy" won't survive to benefit the next generation if the present generation fails to make drastic changes to our resource use, now.

The risk assessment skills evidenced by some of the contributors to this forum don't augure well for their own personal wealth and health decisions. The cautious person thinks "what is the cost if I am wrong?" and takes the path of prudent change rather than risk a catastrophic outcome.