climategateFollow

Spoiler The picture is a cropped vampire futanari, who is ***********************

NOW YOU KNOW!

Wrong thread and forum Sickos.

Yeah, but they tend to be massive scams.

"Pay for us to reduce carbon on your behalf by upgrading our infrastructure!

P.S. We were going to upgrade it anyway, suckers."

And that's the best case scenario, really.

It's an absurd idea, and frankly whoever came up with it should be executed for crimes against humanity. Sure, it has the benefit of ******** over the developing world - and, let's face it, we all hate those guys - but it's an absurd scheme. Cheating is hilariously easy, not least because these schemes are international. That's not asking for trouble, is it? I mean, sure, these countries may have a disregard for international law that puts Bush to shame, but they won't cheat here, surely? This is the Earth's future! We might not be able to stop the Rwandans turning each other into Halloween costumes, but we should be able to monitor every single company in Russia, right?

Now, even if we could make everyone play fair despite massive incentives to cheat, there would still be gaping flaws in this scheme. Carbon not emitted is not fungible with carbon contained in trees, for example. Reforestation is a decent solution, but it's temporary, even assuming no one nicks your forest once it's up. Trees hold a fair amount of carbon in their bodies, but the speed at which trees lock carbon up in the earth can best be described as glacial.

In summary, fuck carbon trading and fuck Fox News.

Biochar/agrichar production is almost instantaneous and will lock carbon up for thousands of years. Also raises crop yields by 300%, which is helpful when we want to reforest, rather than clear more land. Also helpful that it can take many types of present-day waste to produce. Now if only people, businesses, CHP producers, power producers and governments would discover modern pyrolytic kilns, we'd be all set. /sigh

You are quite welcome. If you require more information, hesitate not to ask.

He lives to serve.

Were I trying to make something out of this article, I'd quote the actual emails or source materials. I read the article and don't follow from those quotes of the actual emails (as opposed to the quotes of a reporter of questionable bias who read the emails).

Every case of actual issues directly with the emails that I have heard of is no big deal, upon further investigation.

For example, one "scandal" was with a certain result who had a paper rejected from a journal. NPR called the editor. The editor said the paper was nothing new - that he - the editor - among many others, had already published similar findings in that journal.

Many of the other details I can discuss in detail if anyone actually quotes the emails. Since no one has, I'll wait until someone does so.

Many, many of these practices are common to all fields of science with which I am familiar.

Do you think humans can, for example, create deserts?

SCIENCE!

No, that is math. In science you gather evidence.

From the surprisingly good wikipedia article on science: "Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. "

This is both the great and terrible thing about science. It turns out, however, that pure mathematical proofs are virtually useless when writing actual policy whereas science is a goldmine.

The appropriate political discussion is where to draw the line: how much evidence is needed to write policy - major or minor.

Any significant climate policy will be dramatic and the question arises: is the science solid enough to justify this. We do this all the time. We limit lead, for example, which Bush Junior basically does not believe is a toxin (as evidenced by certain appointments I discussed at that time).

One could watch the mythbusters, for example. They do a great job - and it turns out they are wrong all the time. They call a myth busted and it turns out to be real.

If only there were several joint statements by the national academies of sciences various nations affirming anthropogenic climate change and the authority of the IPCC on climatology. All it would take is one signed sample document to prove the matter. Wish we had one :( If only people could agree there was a scientific consensus this matter would be settled.

Edited, Nov 30th 2009 11:00pm by Allegory

Though said with satire, I honestly hope you'll glance at those links Varrus and seriously consider them.

Politics MMO style: