Evidence uncovered of pro-AGW scientific corruption?

[Adam1]

Nice satire on that idiotic article:

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’

If the Newton / Royal Society mail scandal is true, it is a blow to the Renaissance lobby's credibility which is never likely to recover.

[PS_RalphW]

Isn't this all a moot point?

So won't this AGW correct itself before the century is out?

Or is this too simplistic a view?

Unfortunately it is too simplistic. First of all the latency in the system means that the global temperature will not stabilise for at least 30 years even if we stopped all human CO2 emissions today. It will take centuries or even a millennium for CO2 already released to be re-absorbed back to pre-industrial levels, an even then only if we have not passed any tipping points into positive feedbacks which will lock in higher temperatures indefinitely. It is estimated that upt o 2degreesC is already in the pipeline.

Secondly, a slow decline in oil production will not prevent total CO2 emissions from rising or even accelerating, as we strip mine coal, tar sands, oil shales, anything, for ever more inefficient methods of making oil to maintain BAU.

Most doomers think this is unlikely, but many cornucopians don't. They tend to be AGW skeptics, because they realise the implications and would rather not think about them.

[Ludwig]

Last week I was watching the DVD of "Earth Story", a documentary from the late 90s about geology. The final episode is about why Earth can support life while Venus and Mars can't. The story of how runaway climate change took Venus's surface temperature up to 600 degrees C, in a very short space of time, is pretty sobering.

[caspian]

So won't this AGW correct itself before the century is out?

Unlikely, because:

(a) We have already pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause future generations massive problems, and possibly enough to trigger runaway climate change (current CO2 concentration is 384 ppm, and there is a growing body of evidence that 350 ppm should be considered a safe upper limit)

(b) Peak oil is likely to make the problem worse rather than better over the next few decades because faced with the choice between public outrage over the lights going out or digging up every coal seam on the planet and burning it, any consideration about climate change will likely go out of the window

(c) Peak oil doesn't mean no oil. If we've caused this much damage by burning the first half, what will burning the rest do?

[PS_RalphW]

Caspian,

most of the CO2 emisions so far are due to 250 years of burning coal. In terms of total emissions to date the UK is one of the worst offenders world wide. On a par with US.
[edit]

OK not on a par with US.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... NSi0KYe9lQ

Probably third after Russia.

[JohnB]

In terms of total emissions to date the UK is one of the worst offenders world wide.

And we starting it by beginning the Industrial Revolution.

[Quintus]

Here are some quotes from the famous University of East Anglia emails. Plus George Monbiot on the subject.

[RogerCO]

Also this

http://climatedenial.org/2009/11/22/swi ... cientists/

[careful_eugene]

I was directed to this link the other day http://www.petitionproject.org/[quote]The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.[/quote]
At face value over 31,000 American scientists reject the climate change thoery, has anyone come across this site before, is it legitimate?
I'm not a scientist I'm an engineer but I do believe that burning as much stuff as we do every day must affect the climate.

[fifthcolumn]

Trusting that everybody (yes, even MacG) has read the now two posts on RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/

It's notable that one of the main things attempting to be debunked by the "climate change is real, it's caused by us and is a disaster" camp is the paper by Soon and Baliunas.

It's interesting that all the paper does is say the medieval warming period and the little ice age are real.

They are.

What's the big deal?

Even if global warming is NOT real, we STILL need to build out renewables and nuke because we are hitting peak oil real soon now and peak coal and gas in the next fifty years PLUS China cannot grow it's energy usage based on oil so if China grows (and nobody is saying NO to China) then we must perforce cut back on oil.

For me it's a slam dunk.

I couldn't care less whether climate change is real, we STILL need to cut emissions.

[RenewableCandy]

What is a slam dunk? I'm usually more careful with my biscuits or I spill my tea...

[fifthcolumn]

What is a slam dunk? I'm usually more careful with my biscuits or I spill my tea...

Yeah I reckon I'm picking up a few phrases by being immersed in the culture.

Maybe we should keep our sticks on the ice

[Aurora]

BBC News - 24/11/09

In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, looks at the impact of the leaked information on climate change following an e-mail hack.

Article continues ...

[Blue Peter]

What is a slam dunk? I'm usually more careful with my biscuits or I spill my tea...

Well, imagine that your cup of tea is a basketball hoop, and your biscuit is a basketball. Normally you score in basketball by throwing the biscuit into the tea, but you can also dunk your biscuit in the tea to score (if you can jump very high). If you don't just dunk your biscuit in the tea, but ram it in as hard as you can, then you've done a slam dunk,


Peter.

[biffvernon]

It's interesting that all the paper does is say the medieval warming period and the little ice age are real.
They are.

Really? In which parts of the world?