Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

There is a simple solution that all of the people who think that the world is over populated could do to help the population problem.

Just take the first step and lead the depopulation efforts by example!

thanks but I'm not sliting my throat mate, the wasteful gits can go first, at least I know how to use my resources efficiently. The ones that were bred purely for the child benefit can go first

the wasteful gits can go first, at least I know how to use my resources efficiently. The ones that were bred purely for the child benefit can go first

Click to expand...

Amen to that!
Those two alone could knock off about 1/3 of the modern civilizations populations!

tcmtech said:

Amen to that!
Those two alone could knock off about 1/3 of the modern civilizations populations!

Click to expand...

in the uk that would account for 90 % at least (yea i was starting to feel a bit cramped) the dream of most english people seems tobe a big car and big television. OK I have a largeish car (1.8L) but i drive it efficiently, and get almost as many miles to the litre as my old 1 L car, now can you find me another medium to large car driver that can do that ? me thinks not !

well if you came over here and lived out in the country there is still a good chance your nearest neighbors house could still be out of range of a good riffle shot!
Plus I can hook you up with a truck driving job that pays about 2 - 3 times the average local cost of living.
The down side is everything here is bigger. The only 1 L engine you will own would be in your riding lawn mower or snowmobile!

But then when your not living hand to mouth and elbow to elbow you will find reasons to own bigger and more practical to the area vehicles and other equipment. Around here the compact cars dont see the roads for about 5 months out of the year due to snow and rough road conditions.
I can guarantee what you save on cost of living and what you get for added living freedoms more than makes up for having less fuel efficient vehicles!
And if you really miss the compact car feel you can always get a golf cart and go tooting around with that. Around here ATV's and golf carts are street legal in the small towns and typically not looked twice at if they are on the side lanes of the highway.

in fact I own a 1.8 L ford mondeo MKII larger than the MKI becuase the yanks like larger cars, I like it very much and am happy to see my old 1 L atoz across the street outside the house of the guy that bought if off me (for more than I paid for my mondeo) because he could not afford to run his 4 L jeep.

Like I said although I own a much larger car than i used to I don't use that much more fuel. see i'm not a total nutter declaring war on large machinery like i said people need to learn to make effective use of earths resources. I had a crash in my modeo the other day, no its not a right off it won't be hard to fix, had I had the same accident with the atoz it would have been a srap job, so, so far that car has last me for 2 cars.

tcmtech said:

There is a simple solution that all of the people who think that the world is over populated could do to help the population problem.
Just take the first step and lead the depopulation efforts by example!

Click to expand...

If people joined this church, the point would be moot.
It's a pretty funny read actually. Especially question #9. The answer could be better though.

kchriste said:

If people joined this church, the point would be moot.
It's a pretty funny read actually. Especially question #9. The answer could be better though.

Click to expand...

well so thats the sort of garbage freedom of speech gets us !

Thought it was sort of amusing, a vow to stop breeding was the on good point of it. People should really think about how many kids they can support, and plan accordingly. The surplus is usually a burden for the rest of society, in on form, or eventually another. Six or seven kids, born into poverty and welfare, some are going to want new things, not hand-me-downs and second hand. So they start to rob and steal, sell drugs, prostitute.

What the hell does this have to do with Global Warming and Emails anyway? It got down in the mid 40's last night, which really make me skeptical of this who warming trend even existing. I actually had to put on a coat this morning, just take the dog out for a walk. I'd turn on the heat, but the dog loves the cooler weather, and I wind up leaving the door open for him, so kind of pointless.

Only read maybe a dozen of the Emails, mostly picked at random. From the few I've read that had anything of interest, I could see how their graphs had a preconceived goal, and they wanted to fit the data to the graph, not represent the data. There was concerns about grant money and funding. Could be you find what you are looking for, sort of like reading the bible... Doubt whether you read the sequentially, or out of order, you will still get the same impression. Don't think the 'out-of-context' argument is particularly strong in this case. Just a few of the email show pretty well that they are putting a lot of effort into making data fit the graph, and selecting sources that they can stuff in. Personally, there are going to be abnormal findings, and missing portions, which should be included. There are four seasons for much of the world, there will be a lot of variation for each year. There are some major events occasionally, that seem to get smoothed out. I'm sure when Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980, there was some global impact. Ash was scattered across quite a few states, even into Canada. Lot of gases released, forests vaporized, a whole lot of CO2, in a few days. Wildfires out in California burned how many acres this year? How many decades have past, without one major event, but we don't see those spikes on the graphs.

HarveyH42 said:

The surplus is usually a burden for the rest of society, in on form, or eventually another. Six or seven kids, born into poverty and welfare, some are going to want new things, not hand-me-downs and second hand. So they start to rob and steal, sell drugs, prostitute.

Click to expand...

Big families are a throwback to the past when not all the kids survived to adulthood and you needed the extra hands for the farm.

What the hell does this have to do with Global Warming

Click to expand...

Everything. If there were fewer carbon footprints we could maintain the size of the individual foot prints with no consequence.

It got down in the mid 40's last night, which really make me skeptical of this who warming trend even existing. I actually had to put on a coat this morning, just take the dog out for a walk. I'd turn on the heat, but the dog loves the cooler weather, and I wind up leaving the door open for him, so kind of pointless.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse short term local weather with global trends.
There are telltale signs things like mountain pine beetle that we are experiencing in BC. They normally die off during the cold winters but since it is warmer now, they survive recking havoc on the forests here.

Wildfires out in California burned how many acres this year? How many decades have past, without one major event, but we don't see those spikes on the graphs.

Click to expand...

Man has done "good" in this respect. The fighting of forest fires has kept the forests from burning out of control for years in the past.

kchriste said:

Big families are a throwback to the past when not all the kids survived to adulthood and you needed the extra hands for the farm.
Everything. If there were fewer carbon footprints we could maintain the size of the individual foot prints with no consequence.
Don't confuse short term local weather with global trends.
There are telltale signs things like mountain pine beetle that we are experiencing in BC. They normally die off during the cold winters but since it is warmer now, they survive recking havoc on the forests here.
Man has done "good" in this respect. The fighting of forest fires has kept the forests from burning out of control for years in the past.

Click to expand...

Was sort of kidding about the temperature, I know most people up north of here are going through some rough winter conditions. It's not bad here, and nothing unusual.

Forests also burn naturally, it removes the underbrush and dead trees, kills off some of the parasites. Healthy trees tend to survive the fires. Maybe not so good for CO2 production, but overall health of the forest, which pulls CO2 from the atmosphere. Mostly man fight forest fires to save homes and business. Where I grew up, it was mostly a National Forest, and fires were generally caused by careless campers.

Everything seems to balance out, and is self correcting. Some bad things, actually serve a useful purpose, and sometime necessary to preserve the balance. Flooding isn't always a bad thing either, just not good for people and property.

We keep trying to fight, to protect what we own, but do we really own this planet? I don't personally think so, we are just guests, along for the ride. We don't have much any control globally, and only a little locally. The things we do control, usually messes something else up down stream. We can keep holding on to the past, the planet will still keep moving forward, it's stops for nothing. Fighting the planet is non productive, it either wins, or we all lose, it's the only one we've got.

Apparently the 'Global trends', are selectively local and relatively short term, considering the size of the planet, and it's estimated age, even in biblical terms. You wouldn't happen to have a world map, with all the CO2 monitoring stations available? Have always been curious about how many, how long they have been there, and where they are located, just to see how well the represent the entire planet. Pretty sure some countries wouldn't allow for such things, some countries would steal the equipment for scrap, others would destroy it for fear of spying (or just for fun).

HarveyH42 said:

You wouldn't happen to have a world map, with all the CO2 monitoring stations available?

Click to expand...

This is all I could find so far that has a map, but there are probably others not affiliated with WDC:
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/01/WDCs.pdf
It's on the very last page (16).
There is also the NOAA site which isn't on the above map. It has been monitoring CO2 since 1958:


**broken link removed**

There is a more data here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Apparently the 'Global trends', are selectively local and relatively short term, considering the size of the planet, and it's estimated age, even in biblical terms. You wouldn't happen to have a world map, with all the CO2 monitoring stations available? Have always been curious about how many, how long they have been there, and where they are located, just to see how well the represent the entire planet.

Click to expand...

The first actual scientific sampling began around 1960.
Much of the present sampling is apparently done by fly by methods from aircraft and drone systems as I am understating it.

Lets Just say you might have more light bulbs in your house than there are official global warming studies related CO2 monitors set up world wide.
There are a fair number of them set up for volcanic and geological data collection but I dont think having the sensors stuffed down volcano's throats and vent holes is a very accurate place for overall global CO2 level sampling.

What I have questioned and still do question is why every study done now never has the margin of error listed anywhere on it or within the related information. All of the old school scientific study stuff I have seen that was done years ago always had the relative error factors and percents listed with them.
Now that little but all important bit of information never seems to be found stated anywhere in any terms that any one can easily understand.

They don't want others to have the real data, it might cause them to come up with different interpretations of the data. They just give you that nice graph and try to gloss over how they came up with it as much as possible.

The map on page 16, only showed monitoring in the northern hemisphere, Australia was the only one in the south. Maybe there is only a CO2 problem in the northern part of the planet, or maybe the more industrial areas are to the north, so they read higher CO2. The southern half be less developed, jungle and rain forest is probably a lot cleaner...

Really hope this isn't the case, kind of disappointing to find out there aren't more stations, at least one one each continent. They have that much trouble, with such a small sampling, and this stuff sells so well. If they pull this off, we are truly in trouble, but not from ecology, but economy...

Sceadwian said:

They don't want others to have the real data, it might cause them to come up with different interpretations of the data. They just give you that nice graph and try to gloss over how they came up with it as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Whatever:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

kchriste said:

Whatever:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Click to expand...

Nice. In only about 35 years, CO2 levels have risen about 50 parts per million, after water vapor was removed... Doesn't look like a huge volume of CO2, to be doing all that global warming. Must be some really potent stuff, or maybe it's not really problem yet, but if we keep increasing the concentration, at this alarming rate, it will. Least it states that these aren't the raw numbers, and they can be changed at anytime, usually minor adjustments.

kchristie, that's at a single location... From a scientific standpoint the graph can be thrown out as irrelevant because the number of sampling points by location isn't high enough to correlate the data from that particular site to anything else. It's a simple graph with an increasing trend in a single location, on it's own it has no scientific value of anykind whatsoever, it's just data from a single point. If that's the kind of data global warming trends are based off of the people that publish those findings should be stripped of all their academic achievements, even a freshman college student should know better than to draw broad conclusions from such narrow data. That's the kind of absolute moronic insanity that ticks me off. There is NO logic behind it at all! Even basic common sense should kick in at this point.

Sceadwian said:

kchristie, that's at a single location... From a scientific standpoint the graph can be thrown out as irrelevant because the number of sampling points by location isn't high enough to correlate the data from that particular site to anything else.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It doesn't have to be correlated. The data stands on it's own as a measure of CO2 at that site. There is a reason there are so few sampling sites, beyond lack of funding. It is due to the fact that there are limited sites that are far away from man-made sources of CO2 which would produce higher than normal / inconsistent readings. Hawaii is pretty isolated in the pacific ocean so is a VERY good indicator of CO2 levels over the Pacific region. So are you saying the data collected, which the graph I posted is based on, should be thrown out?
If so, further discussion is a waste of time as you can question anything at this point, such as the calibration of equipment, co-conspiracy of the calibration lab, even basic reality itself!

Sceadwian said:

]If that's the kind of data global warming trends are based off of the people that publish those findings should be stripped of all their academic achievements, even a freshman college student should know better than to draw broad conclusions from such narrow data.

Click to expand...

This is simply ONE source of data which contributes the global CO2 graphs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Hawaii? It's also an active volcanic region how can that be a good place to measure C02 levels? The graph is a simple chart, however NO correlation to global C02 levels can be attained from that data, measuring C02 at specific 'isolated' spots is also just as irrelevent because air currents change so the air it's getting comes from different sources over time. Without correlation the data doesn't mean anything, it's just data, any assumption based on it has to be proven from other independent sources of unrelated data, this again is BASIC science. I'm not arguing against the data itself, merely the interpretations of it by people that see what they want in the data without hard science to back it up.