CRU hack

I have seen no evidence of this being a political discussion. The title of the thread is not political in nature and as a matter of fact there in NO discussion of the title, only of the "stolen" emails.

I am moving this to Earth sciences where it should have been posted in the first place.

If this thread is to continue at least a nod needs to be given to the subject of the thread.

I have seen no evidence of this being a political discussion. The title of the thread is not political in nature and as a matter of fact there in NO discussion of the title, only of the "stolen" emails.

I am moving this to Earth sciences where it should have been posted in the first place.

Ummm... and how often has it happened?

This thread is about the political aspects of climate change.

There is nothing here discussing science, it is dicussing the current events surrounding it.

See the article from the Wall Street Journal Politics section. This is not about the science, this is about unethical practices and the politics involved. Monique already decided that this topic was not suitable for the earth forum, which is for discussing the science only.

There are two elements here, firstly the recycling of tipping point predictions and their political/ scientific merit and secondly the hack of a CRU computer exposing some sensitive e-mail discussions of which there is a locked thread in the Earth forums. Obviously that is not about science but about how climate 'science' is made. About the latter some more interesting opinions edit: removed links to non-mainstream sources.

Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails

Climate Emails Stoke Debate

So leaving aside the emails about "tricks" and "hiding declines", the fact that these scientists seemed so intent on removing any critical probing of their data and findings is the real disgrace and will permannently stain the repuation of the scientific community.

The people whose e-mails and data files were released are working on a statement to defend themselves. When it comes out, I'll post it here.

A fundamental point that needs to be understood is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.

None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice.

Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes.

While no direct evidence of ecological damage from carbon dioxide has been found, that is no excuse for reducing environmental protection.

We shouldn't undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. More should be done, especially in developing countries.

Beyond quality of life issues, human life itself is significantly more threatened by polluted water, polluted air, habitat destruction, unbridled population growth and a host of related ecological problems than it is by global climate change on the scales that we have seen in the past 28 years.

Millions of children around the world die every year due to water borne diseases. Tens of millions of people are forced to breathe air that is blackened and made toxic by fumes from leaded gasoline, industrial pollution and cooking fires.

Women and girls in some developing countries are forced to walk miles each day from their villages to the receding edges of the forests to harvest green wood and other low-energy biomass for the fires they use to cook their meals and heat their homes.

A U.N. report estimated that 1.6 million people — most of them women and children — die each year due to indoor pollution from cooking fires.

While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain, research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.

We should also do what the U.S. does best: We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy. Just as transportation was "de-horsified" in the last century, we believe energy in the 21st century will continue to be de-carbonized.

Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies.

We should also enhance the national and international infrastructure for dealing with climate and weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. We know these events will continue to happen whether the climate changes or not. Everyone would benefit if we were better prepared when they happen.

Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we might even be able to reliably forecast what the climate will do in future generations.

— Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy Spencer
Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville