ClimateGate busts things wide open

[ronan01]

At last some people in Britain have seen sense and given the go-ahead to frack for shale gas in Yorkshire.

Some estimate Britain has enough shale gas to last about 400 years - and it cheap as well, which should be good for British industry.

I imagine the long suffering people of Britain will be glad to heat their houses and make a nice cuppa cheaply, instead of paying ridiculous over-the-top prices for wind and solar energy, you know, that diffuse and unreliable energy that is not available when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow.

Greenp!ss, like the other greentards, just dont get it and wail its "bitterly disappointing". But they say that about all progress.

Frack baby frack. Deliver cheap reliable energy to people so they can prosper and advance.

http://news.sky.com/story/1701001/frack ... -yorkshire

[GT93]

Britain might be better off if the planet is 2 to 4 degrees warmer? It's been pretty warm in NZ this calendar year. I have enjoyed it. It's starting to feel like Australia over here. I think the Aussies have fairly short winters. Winter was very late arriving here this year. No complaints from me.

[papafarang]

obviously never been to England, always windy, and you don't need sunshine. just light for solar panels to work . as usual woland is a mind of disinformation , I wonder if he thinks they put wind turbines in sheltered valleys ? or solar panels in caves ? as for greenies, how many members on here have joined greenpeace ? their just as nuts as woland.if I had my way we would eat all the lions tigers and bears, we would eradicate every single dangerous animal on the planet,sharks, hippos ,crocodiles. I mean Australia ... roos and koalas, two completely useless life forms that should be zoo specimens or coats.
you know the only problem I have with oil is that it will run out, it's not reliable. renewables are the human races pension . as for saying it will last 100's of years, give me a break. we have 1.2 billion cars on the roads. living standards are improving rapidly, so in 100 years when everybody can own a car we could have 6 billion cars, how long will it last then ? we need renewable tech and we need it now, not when the lights go out like daft woland thinks

[ronan01]

obviously never been to England, always windy, and you don't need sunshine. just light for solar panels to work . as usual woland is a mind of disinformation , I wonder if he thinks they put wind turbines in sheltered valleys ? or solar panels in caves ? as for greenies, how many members on here have joined greenpeace ? their just as nuts as woland.if I had my way we would eat all the lions tigers and bears, we would eradicate every single dangerous animal on the planet,sharks, hippos ,crocodiles. I mean Australia ... roos and koalas, two completely useless life forms that should be zoo specimens or coats.
you know the only problem I have with oil is that it will run out, it's not reliable. renewables are the human races pension . as for saying it will last 100's of years, give me a break. we have 1.2 billion cars on the roads. living standards are improving rapidly, so in 100 years when everybody can own a car we could have 6 billion cars, how long will it last then ? we need renewable tech and we need it now, not when the lights go out like daft woland thinks

Shale gas is not oil, and 400 years of supply for Britain is a long time. I am sure the people of 2416 will have figured out solutions to problems.

You really are stuck in an old fashioned apocalyptic mind-set.

The future is bright - you really need to research "automated vehicles".

Dear Mrs Papafarang,

Young Papafarang is trying, really trying. We wish it was not so. We would prefer he did not come to school with his "the end is nigh" billboard. It may be better for all if you keep him at home where he will do less damage. We can provide a list of schools for pupils with special needs and with a very negative attitude to life, invention, innovation and creative thinking.

Signed,

Papafarangs Teacher.

[papafarang]

was that a sarcastic letter to my dead mother ? very bizarre. what apocalypse ,I have no idea what your waffling on about , being part of a younger generation I see tech as being needed today, old people like you luddites are just blinkered . my post was the completely opposite to how you comprehended it, but then again your post has nothing to do with fossil fuels or the future, its just a shallow attempt at some kind of humor, its real point is you trolling me, a simple post from me explaning your as bad as the greenies you try to pass off as me being anti technology. I don't give a monkeys fart about saving whales,or coal miners jobs either i'm the one saying outdated fossil use is a dead end street and we need to advance, your the one that wants to live in the past, your just a dinosaur luddite refusing to see the future, the sooner we ditch oil the faster we will advance. heres some advice woland, don't worry about your old age , it don't last that long. and things will change with or without you

[ronan01]

was that a sarcastic letter to my dead mother ? very bizarre. what apocalypse ,I have no idea what your waffling on about , being part of a younger generation I see tech as being needed today, old people like you luddites are just blinkered . my post was the completely opposite to how you comprehended it, but then again your post has nothing to do with fossil fuels or the future, its just a shallow attempt at some kind of humor, its real point is you trolling me, a simple post from me explaning your as bad as the greenies you try to pass off as me being anti technology. I don't give a monkeys fart about saving whales,or coal miners jobs either i'm the one saying outdated fossil use is a dead end street and we need to advance, your the one that wants to live in the past, your just a dinosaur luddite refusing to see the future, the sooner we ditch oil the faster we will advance. heres some advice woland, don't worry about your old age , it don't last that long. and things will change with or without you

The note was to your wife.

I thought you wanted this thread to be a comedy thread, but you've changed your mind ..... again.

OK - how do you want it? Serious or funny? Up to you.

I like whales, I'm horrified you dont care about them. Whats wrong with you?

And as for coal miners, I care for them deeply, and all the hungry mouths they have to feed - dont you like coal miners children? What did they ever do to you?

I think the future is bright, unlike you, all you seem to see is disaster and doom and gloom.

I assume you have a car, but you seem to not want the rest of the worlds poor to have one. What did they do to not deserve what you have?

You should be more sharing and caring .... I mean, those poor whales, not to mention the coal miners sweating away in the dark to provide coal to keep your lights on.

I'm speechless.

[papafarang]

I see now that i'm dealing with a complete loony toon, your comprehension od the subject is poor at best and twisted at worst , and as usual it comes down to insults, that my friend is a defensive mechanism , your social skills are lacking .
sociopath.
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
let me explain that, as a man you can get into any discussion you like, you can debate .query and argue any point you like. but one thing men don't get into is mentioning wives or mothers in any manner. sadly you have just moved onto this taboo subject'. so my thoughts before about you being a sad man have now moved on, your now just an egotistical obnoxious fool, with no real intelligence or any understanding of what your even posting or even comprehension of what other people post. or put it like this , I should have realized this when it was pointed out that you math skills left you unable to add up to 100. so crack on copy and past drivel as much as you like

[ronan01]

I see now that i'm dealing with a complete loony toon, your comprehension od the subject is poor at best and twisted at worst , and as usual it comes down to insults, that my friend is a defensive mechanism , your social skills are lacking .
sociopath.
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
let me explain that, as a man you can get into any discussion you like, you can debate .query and argue any point you like. but one thing men don't get into is mentioning wives or mothers in any manner. sadly you have just moved onto this taboo subject'. so my thoughts before about you being a sad man have now moved on, your now just an egotistical obnoxious fool, with no real intelligence or any understanding of what your even posting or even comprehension of what other people post. or put it like this , I should have realized this when it was pointed out that you math skills left you unable to add up to 100. so crack on copy and past drivel as much as you like

Does that mean you dont want to do comedy anymore?

[fatbob]

If you don't reply papafarang the fool might just disappear if we are lucky.

[ronan01]

The Economist writes that without fracking Britain will have to import 70% of its gas by 2019.

And the British Geological Survey estimates that even if 10% of the shale gas deposits are recoverable it will be enough to power Britain for 50 years.

It would be a fair assumption that new technology and tools will be available in 50 years to extract some more, and so on.

This would boost Britains balance of trade and provide jobs.

You have to wonder why some people are against introducing new technology like fracking and horizontal drilling that will improve peoples lives?

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... y-fracking

[Lone Star]

.

[papafarang]

"Unfortunately, a number of years ago, emails were revealed which showed that scientists were colluding to persuade the world that global warming is a problem. As I understand it, they were making some of the data appear worse than it actually was. Not a good idea when it comes to credibility.

February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2.In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3.In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4.In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5.In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6.In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7.In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8.In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9.In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

[Lone Star]

.

[ronan01]

Almost all of them are believers and hardly independent and unbiased.

The UN, the US EPA and Penn State are all on board already as believers. Penn State investigating their own twice is one of the most comical. How embarrassing would it be for them to show their hired prof to be disingenuous with his data? There have been other similar events since that first PSU prof's questionable assertions. Even the UN's Climate Change bunch has been proven to be fudging at least once and maybe more. It's apparent that those in favor of this belief will do all they can to exonerate their peers.

Measurable answers to the questions posed at the end of my post would be the most helpful to me and many others in this debate, and provide the most impetus for some of those who question the assertions, to get on board. Until there is something of certainty other than models and more questionable predictions that are proven wrong over time, this will be debated passionately by both sides.

Good luck waiting for answers.

The whole warming / CO2 case has been been presented with a degree of "certainty" that does not exist.

Future forecasts have been presented with a "certainty" that cannot be substantiated.

Meaningless statements like "climate is real" are presented as part of this "certainty", and to stifle discussion.

Natural variation is dismissed because it does not comply with the "certainty"

Only a single cause and a single solution, based on so called "certainty", is tolerated.

Other possible solutions are dismissed because they dont comply with the "certainty".

And anybody who questions the "certainty" is vilified.

Science is never settled and the basis of science is to question "certainty".

The believers cannot tolerate questioning or discussion. They are totalitarian in their belief and action.

[rick]

Limited fracking i do not have an issue with - if it is safe. When tried in Lancashire there were multiple small earthquakes - no known damage, but who knows what is happening underground. With large parts of the UK dependent on aquifers for water, it is essential that fracking areas and useable aquifers do not overlap; because accidents WILL happen. And pollution of aquifers could take many years before it appears in drinking water.

Also there is a lot of speculation on actual recoverable reserves from fracked oil and gas. Actual production tends to decline more rapidly than traditional wells. It is necessary to continually drill new wells to maintain production - this is partially why in the USA fracked oil and gas has plateaued.

Fracking isn't a brilliant new technology which will give us hundreds of years of fuel - just something that gives us another 20 years or so. The North Sea was meant to have massive gas and oil reserves, now in severe decline - it has lasted for 30-40 years but the UK based it's energy policy on the assumption it would last nearly 'for ever'. That is why we had to scramble after wind power the last 20 years. The current government set it sights on a new range of Nuclear power stations - but all the commercial companies lost interest bar one - which had a political interest in the proposed technology - which has turned out to be problematic and leading to severe delays on existing builds - now about 10 years and ongoing. EDF may still pull out of the UK contract, or delay it. Anyway there will be no new nuclear power plants in the UK before 2025. It is lucky that UK electricity demand has stagnated for the last 10-15 years, because we have had no new domestic sources of power except for renewables - which have taken up the gap caused by closing old coal fired power stations.

[papafarang]

the original post started In 2009, nearly 7 years ago. since then climategate turned out to be a folly, propaganda . in fact it's been forgotten as a waste of time. the post from 7 years ago has been answered.

as you say lone star "Almost all of them are believers and hardly independent and unbiased." the word is "almost" , but they all had the same conclusion "climitgate" was a hoax .

"Measurable answers to the questions posed at the end of my post would be the most helpful to me and many others in this debate, and provide the most impetus for some of those who question the assertions, to get on board. Until there is something of certainty other than models and more questionable predictions that are proven wrong over time, this will be debated passionately by both sides."

excellent, stated as it is. no one can truly say it is or is not. but there's an old saying about this "err on the side of caution" .example... if there was a frozen lake, and one guy said "its safe to walk across" and another guy said "what ever you do don't walk on that ice" what would you do ? we can debate who's right or wrong. but in my mind walking around would be the safest plan obviously.
as for tax. governments have never needed excuses to tax us or increase tax. maybe we should directly tax fuel, so the biggest users pay their fair slice rather than the little people taking the burden.

this tread is about ClimateGate , not tax, not renewables, not even oil. it's about 7 years later ClimateGate turned out to be a hoax.
lets simplify the answers .

"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data".
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

simply put, everything was answered , climategate never existed . it rates up there with Bigfoot, aliens and elvis lives in pattaya with a ladyboy called Georgina .
by the way ,anyone out there . the "X FILES" was not a documentary

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
mark twain

[ronan01]

the original post started In 2009, nearly 7 years ago. since then climategate turned out to be a folly, propaganda . in fact it's been forgotten as a waste of time. the post from 7 years ago has been answered.

as you say lone star "Almost all of them are believers and hardly independent and unbiased." the word is "almost" , but they all had the same conclusion "climitgate" was a hoax .

"Measurable answers to the questions posed at the end of my post would be the most helpful to me and many others in this debate, and provide the most impetus for some of those who question the assertions, to get on board. Until there is something of certainty other than models and more questionable predictions that are proven wrong over time, this will be debated passionately by both sides."

excellent, stated as it is. no one can truly say it is or is not. but there's an old saying about this "err on the side of caution" .example... if there was a frozen lake, and one guy said "its safe to walk across" and another guy said "what ever you do don't walk on that ice" what would you do ? we can debate who's right or wrong. but in my mind walking around would be the safest plan obviously.
as for tax. governments have never needed excuses to tax us or increase tax. maybe we should directly tax fuel, so the biggest users pay their fair slice rather than the little people taking the burden.

this tread is about ClimateGate , not tax, not renewables, not even oil. it's about 7 years later ClimateGate turned out to be a hoax.
lets simplify the answers .

"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data".
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

simply put, everything was answered , climategate never existed . it rates up there with Bigfoot, aliens and elvis lives in pattaya with a ladyboy called Georgina .
by the way ,anyone out there . the "X FILES" was not a documentary

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
mark twain

There you go Lone Star - you have your answers

[ronan01]

ps.

I cant help but wonder how much of Papafarangs business is powered by renewable energy - care to enlighten us Papafarang?

[GT93]

Drumpf's big shadow is now looming large over attempts to mitigate climate change. A lot is riding on the American voters in the swing states this November. Well, denialists think not.

[papafarang]

"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data".
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

simply put, everything was answered , climategate never existed . it rates up there with Bigfoot, aliens and elvis lives in pattaya with a ladyboy called Georgina .
by the way ,anyone out there . the "X FILES" was not a documentary

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
mark twain