UK's Climate Research Unit server Hacked -- Cat out of bag

[hammegk]

I'm Conservative --- and Right. Does that count?

No, you're reactionary, and fanatic right. Let's be careful here. :p

You're being too kind. Hammegk figures he's right even when his nose has been rubbed in how wrong he is.

Your composition as usual needs more cowbell.

You have never come even close to demonstrating me wrong.

And finally, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Excellent show for one who has no argument. Your nose has repeatedly been rubbed in the fact that skepticism does not entail materialism nor dualism, and pyrrhonism is explicitly silent on those topics.

And you are a legend in your own mind.

I seldom mention the word skepticism and have never linked it to ontology. I have no more say about Pyrrhonism than Pyrrho did.

Go fuck yourself 'til it bleeds, and be sure to add more cowbell.

[asthmatic camel]

Mentat, even decades, centuries or millenia are pretty short term in the grand scheme of things. I'll chance my neck and say that a new ice age would be far more damaging than global warming.

Aye, but right now we're still in a rather big extinction period, and I'm guessing it'll take biomes centuries and millenia to adapt. I don't think we'll hit it, but we are pushing awfully close to widespread environmental collapse. A new ice age (which, if it followed any schedule, could be between 30,000-90,000 years from now) would royally suck, but that still doesn't make the current situation any less worrisome.

In my uneducated opinion, the problem will be self-correcting. Even assuming that AGW theories are correct, fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover. The real worry is that we'll blow the planet to bits in a fight for what's left.

Extinction? Most species that ever existed are extinct and I'm sure our time will come. How much that matters is the business of philosophers and theologists, and I ain't one of those.

[xouper]

I will say that there are times when I would not release data without an NDA or something of the sort when commercial issues were at stake, but that's a different problem altogether.

Oh, absolutely! But then you're acting in your role as scientist as engineer as opposed to scientist as pure scientist. The only people you're trying to convince is your board of directors, to whom you would give the data (to fund a project, for example). I betcha if you discovered something so dire that it required all the world's governments to spend hundreds of billions and impoverish hundreds of millions you'd be sharing the underlying data with anyone who would listen.

Exactly. If a scientist -- say Phil Jones -- asks governments to make policy decisions based on scientific data, especially regulations that have significant economic consequences, then he MUST show us the data. All the data, not just the cooked data. To refuse to do so is grounds for ignoring him, in my opinion.

[En folkefiende]

Exactly. If a scientist -- say Phil Jones -- asks governments to make policy decisions based on scientific data, especially regulations that have significant economic consequences, then he MUST show us the data. All the data, not just the cooked data. To refuse to do so is grounds for ignoring him, in my opinion.

I'm not sure IGNORING him is the right choice...

Some scruitiny might just be required.

[hammegk]

I will say that there are times when I would not release data without an NDA or something of the sort when commercial issues were at stake, but that's a different problem altogether.

Oh, absolutely! But then you're acting in your role as scientist as engineer as opposed to scientist as pure scientist. The only people you're trying to convince is your board of directors, to whom you would give the data (to fund a project, for example). I betcha if you discovered something so dire that it required all the world's governments to spend hundreds of billions and impoverish hundreds of millions you'd be sharing the underlying data with anyone who would listen.

Exactly. If a scientist -- say Phil Jones -- asks governments to make policy decisions based on scientific data, especially regulations that have significant economic consequences, then he MUST show us the data. All the data, not just the cooked data. To refuse to do so is grounds for ignoring him, in my opinion.

The problem here is that Jones-Mann-Briffa-etal are a cabal who strongly influenced Formal IPCC reports, and were also well positioned to question the validity --if not stop publication -- of Articles that do not support their AGW-skyisfalling position.

[Candide]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

[Mentat]

Mentat, even decades, centuries or millenia are pretty short term in the grand scheme of things. I'll chance my neck and say that a new ice age would be far more damaging than global warming.

Aye, but right now we're still in a rather big extinction period, and I'm guessing it'll take biomes centuries and millenia to adapt. I don't think we'll hit it, but we are pushing awfully close to widespread environmental collapse. A new ice age (which, if it followed any schedule, could be between 30,000-90,000 years from now) would royally suck, but that still doesn't make the current situation any less worrisome.

In my uneducated opinion, the problem will be self-correcting. Even assuming that AGW theories are correct, fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover. The real worry is that we'll blow the planet to bits in a fight for what's left.

Extinction? Most species that ever existed are extinct and I'm sure our time will come. How much that matters is the business of philosophers and theologists, and I ain't one of those.

It matters very much to us if it hits a certain level. That any generic species goes extinct is to be expected, and is of no concern. When the extinction rate is as high as it has been for the past few millenia, you start seeing considerable reductions in carrying capacities overall. That is not good, on a practical (for us) and ecological level.

[Candide]

When the extinction rate is as high as it has been for the past few millenia, you start seeing considerable reductions in carrying capacities overall. That is not good, on a practical (for us) and ecological level.

Well, if we've been wiping out species at record rates since before Jesus was born and we're still here, maybe things aren't that bad after all...

[asthmatic camel]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

[Candide]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

Wow - you read that pretty quickly.

Could you please tell me why his conclusions are incorrect by pointing out the flaws in his arguments?

[xouper]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

And you know this, how?

[asthmatic camel]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

And you know this, how?

It's a very unskeptical opinion based on my personal experience of how much fertile land is required to feed one person in my corner of the world.

[Candide]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

And you know this, how?

It's a very unskeptical opinion based on my personal experience of how much fertile land is required to feed one person in my corner of the world.

So you probably think Norman Bolaug was a cunt also, even though estimates are that he probably saved a billion people from starvation.

[hammegk]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

And you know this, how?

It's a very unskeptical opinion based on my personal experience of how much fertile land is required to feed one person in my corner of the world.

So you probably think Norman Bolaug was a cunt also, even though estimates are that he probably saved a billion people from starvation.

Ten calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of food is what I've been led to believe.

[asthmatic camel]

...fossil fuels are a finite resource which are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to recover.

Julian Simon disagrees with you..

Julian Simon is a cunt if he thinks the world can continue to support even the present human population without fossil fuels.

And you know this, how?

It's a very unskeptical opinion based on my personal experience of how much fertile land is required to feed one person in my corner of the world.

So you probably think Norman Bolaug was a cunt also, even though estimates are that he probably saved a billion people from starvation.

No, I don't think he was a cunt. Yet, how much of even the hardiest produce developed as a result of his work could be realistically fertiilised, grown, harvested and transported to those who need it without fossil fuels?

And would those who are hungry need it if he hadn't saved a billion lives?

Your call.

[Mentat]

When the extinction rate is as high as it has been for the past few millenia, you start seeing considerable reductions in carrying capacities overall. That is not good, on a practical (for us) and ecological level.

Well, if we've been wiping out species at record rates since before Jesus was born and we're still here, maybe things aren't that bad after all...

You *could* make the same argument about holding a lit stick of dynamite. :P

[Candide]

Yet, how much of even the hardiest produce developed as a result of his work could be realistically fertiilised, grown, harvested and transported to those who need it without fossil fuels?

And would those who are hungry need it if he hadn't saved a billion lives?

Your call.

That's not the point. The point is that Bolaug and Simon demonstrated that the only limit to our ability to make ourselves more prosperous is man's imagination and ingenuity. It's silly to claim that we'll blow ourselves to bits fighting over the last few drops of oil or scraps of orange rind.

Seriously - don't you think we could supply all the electricity we need by building a nuclear power plant in every county in the United States that's more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault (and I'm including the five counties that make up New York City)? Sure, there would be problems to surmount, but it could certainly be done. Fopr all the scoffing at Al Gore's claim that the temperature inside the earth is millions of degrees, there is certainly enough geothermal heat to heat our homes forever.

[Nyarlathotep]

It's silly to claim that we'll blow ourselves to bits fighting over the last few drops of oil or scraps of orange rind.

No, we will be trying to blow the other guy to bits over the last few drops of oil or scraps of orange rind. Of course he will be trying to do the same to each of us.

And "man's imagination and ingenuity" that you seem to place such a high value you one will just make us more eficient at doing that.

[asthmatic camel]

Yet, how much of even the hardiest produce developed as a result of his work could be realistically fertiilised, grown, harvested and transported to those who need it without fossil fuels?

And would those who are hungry need it if he hadn't saved a billion lives?

Your call.

That's not the point. The point is that Bolaug and Simon demonstrated that the only limit to our ability to make ourselves more prosperous is man's imagination and ingenuity. It's silly to claim that we'll blow ourselves to bits fighting over the last few drops of oil or scraps of orange rind.

Seriously - don't you think we could supply all the electricity we need by building a nuclear power plant in every county in the United States that's more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault (and I'm including the five counties that make up New York City)? Sure, there would be problems to surmount, but it could certainly be done. Fopr all the scoffing at Al Gore's claim that the temperature inside the earth is millions of degrees, there is certainly enough geothermal heat to heat our homes forever.

Seriously, don't you think that geothermal heating is nothing more than a pipe-dream for the overwhelming majority of the world's population? How the fuck do you think all the minerals required would be mined, the factories needed to produce the equipment powered, transportation of the finished goods and then their installation would be powered without fossil fuels? It's not going to happen on any meaningful scale in our lifetimes.

I'm afraid that overpopulation really is the problem that needs to be addressed. If it isn't tackled voluntarily, nature will take its course, just as it always has.

[Candide]

Seriously, don't you think that geothermal heating is nothing more than a pipe-dream for the overwhelming majority of the world's population?

So was electricity, once upon a time.

This demonstrates the poverty of imagination among the "save the planet from teh eeeevil humans!" league. They can easily conceive of the horror of billions of starving people, but they can't conceive of more people living better lives. The world is a zero-sum game to them - there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, so for one man to get rich, he must make another man poor.

And they cannot conceive of the idea that there will ever exist any technology much more advanced than today's, even though the speed with which technology advances is breathtaking. It took man thousands of years to get off the ground in powered flight; it only took him another 66 to leave the earth entirely and land on the moon. When I was a kid, you heard stories about very rich men who actually had telephones in their cars. Now everyone carries one in his pocket.

And yet you seem to think that a hundred years from now, we'll still be burning fossil fuels and we won't have figured out how to do geothermal on a mass scale. I have a news flash for you: As long as there is money to be made by doing so, it will happen. Capitalism is the greatest poverty-destroying and class-leveling machine in world history.

And all you can do is wail that there are too many of us.

[Nyarlathotep]

I am sure in a hundred years it will be replicated ponies for everyone! :roll:

[Mentat]

I am sure in a hundred years it will be replicated ponies for everyone! :roll:

Still more likely than economists having a grasp of environmental science.

[asthmatic camel]

Candide, if I may say so, you're talking from a very Western perspective. Billions are already struggling to survive across the world, none of whom own a car or are likely to ever own a mobile phone.

If you don't want to accept the reality of population pressure, then that's entirely your affair.

[xouper]

Candide, if I may say so, you're talking from a very Western perspective. Billions are already struggling to survive across the world, none of whom own a car or are likely to ever own a mobile phone.

Prior to the industrial age, such poverty has been the norm for almost everyone. Just because there are still many people who have not joined the 21st century does not mean the rest of us should do anything different.

Candide was being polite, but your argument is essentially one huge fallacy called an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how the planet can support a larger population is not a valid argument for reducing the population.

[Mentat]

One thing is for certain, we cannot continue to keep growing at the rate we are. What is the maximum population the Earth can sustain? 9 billion? 12 billion? What is the maximum population that the Earth can reasonably accommodate for a decent lifestyle for most? 4 billion? 2 billion? 6 billion? I haven't the numbers, but there is an upper limit where no matter the technology, it's not going to budge.

[xouper]

One thing is for certain, we cannot continue to keep growing at the rate we are.

What do you mean "we"?

Have you looked at the growth rates in Europe, North America, China, Japan, and Russia, just to name a few?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... rowth_rate

[Mentat]

One thing is for certain, we cannot continue to keep growing at the rate we are.

What do you mean "we"?

Have you looked at the growth rates in Europe, North America, China, Japan, and Russia, just to name a few?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... rowth_rate

'We' as in the 'we' I had been referencing in the whole post, the global population of Earth.

From the link:

The average population growth rate for the world is 1.17%.

[asthmatic camel]

Candide, if I may say so, you're talking from a very Western perspective. Billions are already struggling to survive across the world, none of whom own a car or are likely to ever own a mobile phone.

Prior to the industrial age, such poverty has been the norm for almost everyone. Just because there are still many people who have not joined the 21st century does not mean the rest of us should do anything different.

Candide was being polite, but your argument is essentially one huge fallacy called an argument from personal incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how the planet can support a larger population is not a valid argument for reducing the population.

xouper, as much as I respect your opinions, are you really trying to tell me that every one of the world's 6.7 billion people can have a car, a mobile phone and a free pony? Of course they can't. Also, as Mentat points out, there must be an upper limit to the number of people the world can support. If we're not there yet, we soon will be.

[xouper]

. . . are you really trying to tell me that every one of the world's 6.7 billion people can have a car, a mobile phone and a free pony?

I don't recall saying everyone can have a free pony.

[asthmatic camel]

. . . are you really trying to tell me that every one of the world's 6.7 billion people can have a car, a mobile phone and a free pony?

I don't recall saying everyone can have a free pony.

Leave me alone. I'm trying to grow a beard but my recycled tapwater is full of oestrogen.

:P

[Doctor X]

Besides, we all know t3h r34l reason:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... okPony.jpg

--J.D.

[Pyrrho]

Yet, how much of even the hardiest produce developed as a result of his work could be realistically fertiilised, grown, harvested and transported to those who need it without fossil fuels?

And would those who are hungry need it if he hadn't saved a billion lives?

Your call.

That's not the point. The point is that Bolaug and Simon demonstrated that the only limit to our ability to make ourselves more prosperous is man's imagination and ingenuity. It's silly to claim that we'll blow ourselves to bits fighting over the last few drops of oil or scraps of orange rind.

Seriously - don't you think we could supply all the electricity we need by building a nuclear power plant in every county in the United States that's more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault (and I'm including the five counties that make up New York City)? Sure, there would be problems to surmount, but it could certainly be done. Fopr all the scoffing at Al Gore's claim that the temperature inside the earth is millions of degrees, there is certainly enough geothermal heat to heat our homes forever.

Regarding nuclear plants in every county, etc....there is the little issue of having sufficient water available for steam generation and reactor cooling--although I admit I don't know much about the latest nuclear plant technology. Then there is the little problem of waste processing and storage, which has yet to be resolved for existing plants. I really do not think nuclear plants are a panacea.

[asthmatic camel]

Pyrrho, may I introduce you to my old friend, Crazy Eddie?

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho, may I introduce you to my old friend, Crazy Eddie?

I already know a guy named Eddie who is as crazy as a street preacher. I guess one more wouldn't hurt.

[asthmatic camel]

Nah. I meant this Crazy Eddie.

[DrMatt]

I'm Conservative --- and Right. Does that count?

No, you're reactionary, and fanatic right. Let's be careful here. :p

You're being too kind. Hammegk figures he's right even when his nose has been rubbed in how wrong he is.

Your composition as usual needs more cowbell.

You have never come even close to demonstrating me wrong.

And finally, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Excellent show for one who has no argument. Your nose has repeatedly been rubbed in the fact that skepticism does not entail materialism nor dualism, and pyrrhonism is explicitly silent on those topics.

And you are a legend in your own mind.

I seldom mention the word skepticism and have never linked it to ontology. I have no more say about Pyrrhonism than Pyrrho did.

Go fuck yourself 'til it bleeds, and be sure to add more cowbell.

Are you busy deleting your own posts now? Have fun!

[hammegk]

I'm Conservative --- and Right. Does that count?

No, you're reactionary, and fanatic right. Let's be careful here. :p

You're being too kind. Hammegk figures he's right even when his nose has been rubbed in how wrong he is.

Your composition as usual needs more cowbell.

You have never come even close to demonstrating me wrong.

And finally, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Excellent show for one who has no argument. Your nose has repeatedly been rubbed in the fact that skepticism does not entail materialism nor dualism, and pyrrhonism is explicitly silent on those topics.

And you are a legend in your own mind.

I seldom mention the word skepticism and have never linked it to ontology. I have no more say about Pyrrhonism than Pyrrho did.

Go fuck yourself 'til it bleeds, and be sure to add more cowbell.

Are you busy deleting your own posts now? Have fun!

Nope. The last incident did make you look unusually even for you idiotic.

ps. Add more cowbells; that may detract attention from the anal leakage you copiously provide.

[hammegk]

Some questions aren't worth answering. Sorry.

[Candide]

One thing is for certain, we cannot continue to keep growing at the rate we are. What is the maximum population the Earth can sustain? 9 billion? 12 billion? What is the maximum population that the Earth can reasonably accommodate for a decent lifestyle for most? 4 billion? 2 billion? 6 billion? I haven't the numbers, but there is an upper limit where no matter the technology, it's not going to budge.

Here's a list of the second through seventh most densely- populated places on earth:

Monaco
Singapore
Hong Kong
Gibraltar
Vatican City
Bermuda
Malta

The top 30 include Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, and The Netherlands. These are all prosperous, by any meaningful measure.

Meanwhile, many of the poorest countries on earth are also the least-densely populated.

If you can demonstrate any correlation between population density and poverty, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Candide]

Abdul, as big a fan of Mark Steyn as you are, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this:

Jonah, further to earlier discussions about the degree of scandalousness re Warmergate and the CRU, I think "Hide the decline" is a pretty hard phrase to "interpret" in any benign way, and a pretty easy way for anyone to get up to speed with what what's going on. It's already a song, and a T-shirt.

On the other hand, the dullards at the dying US monodailies seem to be working overtime to hide the decline. In Fleet Street and on Australian TV, the statist warm-mongers are at least acknowledging that they have a problem. Over here the brain-dead twits doing their best to turn the Boston Globe circulation figures into Michael Mann's phony hockey stick upside down are going with "Boston Faces Deep Risk From Sea-Level Rise". Why not build protective dikes with unsold bundles of the Globe - or the delivery trucks?

Boldings mine.

Warmergate.

Warm-mongers.


:D