Today's Global Warming Word Problem

Amid the Climatage Scandal in which the director of East Anglia University CRU, Phil Jones, openly admitted that the material found by hackers was genuine,I have a word problem for you to solve.

If an average European flight produces over 400 kg of greenhouse gases for every passenger, how many 400 kg adult polar bears does Al Gore kill when he flies his private plane?

The correct answer is: "It doesn't matter how many polar bears Al Gore kills. What matters is that you not question the science of "Global Warming."

If you are one of those "flat earther, global warming deniers" you might not be surprised to find out that the debate is NOT over in the Science of Gobal Warming.

Enter the current political "gate", Climategate, which involves hacked emails. I find it interesting that Sarah Palin's hacked yahoo email account brought such great interest despite not revealing anything of a criminal nature. Sarah's packer was considered a hero. Certainly we don't want the government hacking our email, but random people of a political bent out to bring down a politician, they are heroes.

Which brings us to the current hacker. Even the word hacker brings about images of a swarmy guy sitting in his mother's basement in his underwear staring vacantly at his computer screen. This time a hacker has hit the mother lode and the data he has discovered is not welcome. It makes some feel, well, uncomfortable.

Do you remember this polar bear moment with Al Gore?



Interestingly enough Al Gore was a tad bit wrong about the court's findings about his movie. On October 2, 2007 a British court found Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, to be politically biased, and it ruled teachers must warn students of that bias before showing the film.

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told investigative that their emails were indeed hacked and does not deny the contents of these emails. As a matter of fact Professor Phil Jones, who heads the climate research unit (CRU) at the UEA, announced that he would step down while the university launches an independent inquiry into allegations of misconduct.

This is an open admission by Jones, who thus admits fully that his system was hacked and that what was contained in the ‘leaked’ material was true! He did not attempt to deny what the contents of 1072 emails and 72 documents were about. Andrew Bolt says of this fact that is was “a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.”

Some of the proxy measurements include tree rings and satellite data. In particular tree rings of one tree were preferred over those of a larger section of rings from a tree that did not manage to support the pro-warming findings! There are a number of problems with using satellite measurements, too – such as each full sweep of the earth is accompanied by a degeneration in the satellite’s orbital height! There are other problems.

Jones sent an email (Nov 1999) to Mann et al, saying:

“Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s (Ed. Michael Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline…”

Another tree-ring scientist, Gary Funkhouser, in an email to ‘Keith’, thought it was funny how he managed to deceive by fiddling data: “I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that” and “I don’t think it would be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have.”

Phil Jones, in another email, admits that money drives his agenda. He said:

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Sounds a bit like fuzzy math to me.

Now am I denying that our earth has been polluted, that our lakes, streams, rivers, and oceans have had dangerous chemicals dumped into them? NO and something needs to be done about that. Am I saying that it's OK to keep throwing out pollutants into our atmosphere? Again the answer is a resounding NO. However, do I think Carbon Credits is going to be the answer? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

What people who demand that we go after greedy, evil corporations by taxing them forget is that corporations PASS THESE taxes on in HIGHER prices to you the consumer. Obama knows that. He's honest about it.



This must be serious because even Jon Steward is talking about it. Jon must be one of those crazy, backward, flat-earther, global warming deniers.



I am for nuclear energy. It's a cleaner source of power. I am for hydro-energy. I think that these venues can and should be explored.

What I'd like to know is what do you think the answer to the pollution problem? Does the news of these recently released emails and the manipulation of the data give you cause to doubt global warming?