Green Spot: Emails and Climate Change

So unless you managed to miss the news for a while you are likely read something on those emails about manipulating data on climate change.  All I have to say is: finally!

Yes, I’m actually happy about this entire thing because it proves one very important fact.  The scientists need to be objective and to date not all of them have been.  I’ve mentioned before to various people that even if people have some good questions about climate change, it’s been near to impossible to have a rationally conversation on the topic with anyone.

We’ve changed climate change from a topic to a near religion so people are no longer thinking but rather just feeling.  It is as if someone walked into a catholic church and asked “Um, so why are you all kneeing before a some guy getting tortured?  Isn’t that a bit gross?”  The question might be completely innocent, but a lot of people would fly off the handle rather than discuss the question with the person and try to understand their point of view.

So perhaps now we can ask some questions like:

  • How can you really model the entire planet atmosphere well?  I mean if you could do it really good why can’t we predict the weather?  If not, then how much of an error is there to your predictions?
  • Why can’t we use geo-engineered solutions like putting sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere or building cloud making ships, if they buy us some time to reduce carbon emissions over a longer term? We’ve already altered the atmosphere with CO2, why not try clouds?  If we are wrong we can shut it off.

How about you?  What questions would you ask know if we can hopefully all talk about this a bit more?

9 thoughts on “Green Spot: Emails and Climate Change”

  1. The one question I would ask is Why aren’t we diverting money away from climate studies and to verifiable non-fabricated problems?

  2. One question I would ask is this:
    What does it matter? How does it hurt anyone to stop polluting so much? How does it hurt anyone to recycle?

    Both side of the argument suck. However, when the options are “keep polluting as much as we do” and “try to reduce that amount”, I don’t see any reason to have an argument in the first place.

  3. Caitlin, the debate isn’t about polluting or not polluting, we know pollution is bad and need to find better ways to do it less. The debate is about CO2.

    That’s why my question of why not start diverting funds from climate science to real verified problems, like pollution in waterways, potable water for the planet etc.

  4. Hrm, odd. The debate on climate change didn’t used to just be about CO2.

    Why not do all of it, though? Reduce any type of pollution that we cause, whether we “believe” it is bad or not. It can’t hurt us.

    I’ll be honest: I don’t care why people decide to live greener, but I’ll always hope that they do.

    Donate your research dollars to problems you believe in personally. Make the green changes to your life that you feel are right. The rest of us should all do the same.

  5. Have kids? How sure are you that C02 isn’t a serious risk? Are you willing to bet their future on that?
    http://bit.ly/7xohTU

    You’re deluding yourself if you think the choice is between funds for adopting more renewable energy (dealing with climage change) vs. cleaning up rivers. The real choice is starting to adopt cleaner energy and better efficiency standards vs. doing nothing while supporting oil company profits.

  6. A lot of people seem to think that the outcome of this is that there is no climate change. In fact, it looks to me like the whole thing is media spin to make it look like data was being nefariously being manipulated when in fact it most likely wasn’t. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ has some interesting information that delves into some of the actual details of what was going on with several followup articles with even more details.

    The sad part of all this is that most people will only read the headlines and say there is no climate change and we should just stop worrying about it when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Corey

  7. Yes Yeroc, I would believe the site that was implicated as colluding to manipulate popular opinion based on manipulated data. . . sure.

    On a kind of related note, it’s currently snowing in Houston. Earliest ever recorded. Must be that CO2 caused global warming.

  8. Our culture is killing the planet, whether or not global warming is real. Ever since the Fertile Crescent, civilization has used its natural resources up, moved out, and used more. We are now at the end, the most untouched places in the world (probably the PNW in the US and Canada, certain places in South America, etc.) are dying. Our culture will soon be extinct (note: our culture, not necessarily the human race, but maybe), so we can either choose to change our ways/culture and make the crash easy, or we can choose not to and suffer the consequences.

Comments are closed.