# Climate Change



## Hamalas (Mar 31, 2014)

I came across this article on the BBC: BBC News - Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN about climate change. Apparently the UN has just released a new report (updated from their 2007 efforts) that is supposed to be the fruit of 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific article demonstrating the reality of climate change and the disastrous effects it could produce. Obviously there is more than a little of "the sky is falling!" rhetoric going on here and I know that the politicians have agendas connected with this. However, there are some legitimate questions which emerge:

How are we to interact with this?

Is climate change real? (I'm inclined to think it is although I'm not convinced that it is exceptional or man-made).

If so is there anything that we can, or should, do about it?

I'd love to hear your collected wisdom on this topic.


----------



## Claudiu (Mar 31, 2014)

Is there climate _change_? Yes there is. The climate is always changing. It depends on what one means by that. Of course, I am aware of how it is usually conceived of, but switching the name from global warming to climate change was a pretty sneaky move. I mean now you can always claim there is "climate change." I do think that there are some things that are man-made. It is hard to deny that. Many corporations and countries have completely devastated areas and made a negative impact on the local environment, which has also made an impact in some, even if minor, way to the climate. However, some of it is hyped, and I think, used by the powers that be to implement their long term goal. Tax, more control, etc. I think it's the use of one of those dialectical processes where they already have the solution planned out, but need a reason to implement it, and then will find anything they have, even if it's confirmation bias, to push us in the intended direction. It's much the same with gun control, for example.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 31, 2014)

Assuming global warming is real (just for the sake of argument), why do liberals automatically think that it's a bad thing, and that something must be "done" about it? And why (aside from their typical arrogance about being able to control virtually everyone and everything) do they think it's possible to do anything about it? I remember, back in the 1970s, the cry was (and from some of the same people now whining about global warming) "global cooling" - we were supposed to be covered by ice within a decade of so. And we all know how that worked out! They also said there would be mass famines in the 1980s - I guess if you're going to be wrong, you might as well do it right!

I think it's not possible to control the entire climate of an entire planet, and leftists are arrogant to think they can do it. However, I think the real issue here is not controlling the climate, but controlling people and nations, and "global warming" is just a means to that end.

Let me quote writer John Derbyshire: _The Left always needs a Grand Cause, and global warming is a perfect fit for the liberal mentality. It allows you to feel good without actually inconveniencing yourself overmuch, demands massive new government powers and corresponding taxation, is open-ended enough to, in theory, go on forever, makes capitalism look bad, and offers endless opportunities to feel warm throbs of guilt while gazing on pictures of poor, dark people suffering pitiably in [conveniently] remote places._

That pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## Edward (Mar 31, 2014)

Apparently there are a lot of 'scientists' out there who have never heard of solar cycles or sun spots. They taught about that in elementary school in the early 1960s.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 31, 2014)

Climate change is real. It has happened before. The vikings emerged from Scandinavia when they did because it was a period of global warming and they had a population boom secondary to this. England at that time was a net exporter of wine to France. Oranges were grown in southern England.
The question is; how much does human industrial activity impact the climate?
Secondly, how much does the loss of the rain forests inmpact the climate?


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 31, 2014)

I believe a lot of the changes we see are the world in decline. A finite world showing those signs of it being so. Yes mankind has abused it though.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 31, 2014)

So what I'm hearing from y'all is that climate change is real but unexceptional. This has happened before and will happen again. 

Is there anything we can or should do in response to it then?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 31, 2014)

Ben,

The quick and realistic answer to your question is that, we keep on doing what we have always been doing. I don't find it necessary to focus our attention on climate change or global warming. Rather, we take care of what God has given us, like we have always believed and preached. There is nothing new under the sun and we should treat this "environmental" issue like any other environmental issue.


----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 31, 2014)

1. Climate Change is perhaps real but not unnatural. It is mostly a political vehicle (for both sides) towards a specific end.
2. Should the government intervene? No. It would inevitably place even greater strain on our already overregulated economy. And intervention would inevitably come at a greater cost of personal liberties. 
3. Should individuals seek a better environment? Yes, of course, especially Christians. Simple, common sense contributions like recycling, gardening, and proper trash disposal are wonderful practices as long as they remain voluntary.
4. From a Christian point of view, we should be good stewards, but ultimately the Creator is still in control. Therefore, we can trust that he won't allow total entropy. Respect and care for what we are stewards of, but over worry about the issue abuses the whole reason for the creation (to see the glory of God) and leads down a slippery slope towards idolatry.

There's my two cents.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 31, 2014)

The Lord could bring environmental and meterological trouble in connection with all the innocent blood that has been shed on the earth since the last war, with legslised abortion etc., although it is ususually unwise to be too specific about why the Lord is bringing trouble on the earth, unless you have prophetic powers that no-one has. The "Covenant of Common Grace/Noahic Covenant" seems very much related to the sixth commandment.

Whether or not the climate change is anthropogenic or not, I don't know. You can get major climactic changes without industrial influence. Also, even if it is anthropogenic, what difference is it going to make if e.g. Great Britain clears herself of fossil fuels while China etc is still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. 

Climate change doesn't concern me, except that I like proper cold snowy winters, hot summers, etc, in the traditional-style, being a traditionalist and a nostalgic.

People will make adjustments over the years to live with the changed climates, and governments will more or less, depending on what they think of the anthropogenic idea, to move to "cleaner" energy sources. Apart from that que sera, sera.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Edward (Mar 31, 2014)

In the mid-1970s, the major media outlets warned us about the risks of global COOLING.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 31, 2014)

CC or GW, false or true (I don't deny the possibility of anthropogenic climate change), seeks to lay a foundation for huge power grabs. Nowadays CO2, the stuff plants need and what we exhale naturally, is a "pollutant"..so who can say where those who believe in this want to go? Top that off with the burning of fossil fuels, essentially global energy production, being a big no no according to these people... things are going to be in a pickle. You don't have to bother Sherlock Holmes on his day off to deduce how energy clamp downs will hurt people. Can you imagine the catastrophe to all but the wealthiest in society if energy prices tripled or quadrupled to gain ground and reverse greenhouse gases so-called. The measures and power grabs will never be sufficient to marshal the weather/climate fast enough to make this cadre happy. A never ending rathole of subsidies, otherwise they can't survive, to "green power generation" that don't net any power will of course be called for. I think many cities are supposed to be under water according to the timetable given in "Inconvenient Truth"..are they not? Like many other issues CC is polluted with state-corporatist interests and frankly grant...er..um..uh prostitution in the scientific community. Any reaction to should take things like this in to consideration.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 31, 2014)

Edward said:


> In the mid-1970s, the major media outlets warned us about the risks of global COOLING.



I was studying climatology as an Agronomy major in the later 70s. We had 3 decades of temperature trends that showed cooling. If it continued, there'd be no oranges in Florida, Iowa would have to switch to short season wheat, starvation would abound, etc. There were serious proposals to find some kind of non toxic black dust that could be dropped from airplanes to cause snow to melt early. But things started warming up before anybody could get funding.



Hamalas said:


> Is there anything we can or should do in response to it then?



If we get just 10% more heat units per year, I'm planting fig trees. Other than that, I guess we can just carry on until the cold spells come again.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Mar 31, 2014)

yeutter said:


> The question is; how much does human industrial activity impact the climate?
> Secondly, how much does the loss of the rain forests inmpact the climate?





Hamalas said:


> So what I'm hearing from y'all is that climate change is real but unexceptional. This has happened before and will happen again.
> Is there anything we can or should do in response to it then?



In my humble opinion, in the developed world, we have built a throw-away have-it-now society. Part of the outfall of this type of lifestyle is damage to the environment. Yes, destruction of the rain forests cause climate problems, and a loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity that even professors know, man can't "recreate." It also leaves some subsistence populations without a means of survival.

Those plastic bottles of water create waste at sea and leach toxins into our water when exposed to heat. The bottled water industry helps deplete water - our most precious natural resource.

I believe we have collectively been irresponsible stewards of God's creation, and need to take a second look at what we can do to honor Him in how we conduct ourselves in this world. 

We do have control over some of these things. We can start using our resources wisely, recycle, reuse and yes, do without many things we take for granted.



Jash Comstock said:


> 4. From a Christian point of view, we should be good stewards, but ultimately the Creator is still in control. Therefore, we can trust that he won't allow total entropy. Respect and care for what we are stewards of, but over worry about the issue abuses the whole reason for the creation (to see the glory of God) and leads down a slippery slope towards idolatry.



In our fallen world, it is so good to know that God is in control.


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 1, 2014)

CuriousNdenver said:


> The bottled water industry helps deplete water


 It takes more water to create a bottle that holds the water. Several litres for a bottle that contains just 1.


----------



## Edward (Apr 1, 2014)

CuriousNdenver said:


> Those plastic bottles of water create waste at sea and leach toxins into our water when exposed to heat. The bottled water industry helps deplete water - our most precious natural resource.



Try going to Midland, Texas, and drinking the tap water there. That should change your mind about bottled water.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Apr 1, 2014)

Edward said:


> Originally Posted by CuriousNdenver
> Those plastic bottles of water create waste at sea and leach toxins into our water when exposed to heat. The bottled water industry helps deplete water - our most precious natural resource.





Edward said:


> Try going to Midland, Texas, and drinking the tap water there. That should change your mind about bottled water.



There may be certain places that need bottled water because tap water isn't fit to drink. But most locales in the developed world don't have that problem.

I would be concerned about WHY your tap water isn't fit to drink. Though I don't know why your water is bad, it seems to point back to our contaminated environment. For me, it's hard to think about things like this and not believe that collectively, our society has sacrificed stewardship of the land for the sake of profit and a life of convenience. I know there are folks who are exceptions to this mentality - I'm speaking of the prevailing attitude in society.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 1, 2014)

I found this article interesting:

A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change

It addresses the position that says global warming is real and at least partially caused by human activity, but it is a net positive, so we shouldn't do anything about it.



> It is a well established principle in the Anglo-American legal tradition that one does not have the right to use one's own property in a manner that causes harm to one's neighbor. There are common law cases gong back 400 years establishing this principle and international law has long embraced a similar norm. As I argued at length in this paper, if we accept this principle, even non-catastrophic warming should be a serious concern, as even non-catastrophic warming will produce the sorts of consequences that have long been recognized as property rights violations, such as the flooding of the land of others.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 1, 2014)

There does appear to be evidence of a warming trend. Whether or not this is a long-term trend, and whether or not it has man-made causes, and whether or not it is a departure from the "norm" rather than a move toward it, are less clear matters... though it does stand to reason that if we put pollution into the atmosphere or cut down large swaths of forest there might be noticeable, harmful effects on climate.

Biblical believers understand two things:

*1. We are caretakers in this world.* We have both the responsibility and the ability to observe what we are doing to the environment and to take steps to "tend the garden" rather than to destroy it. We are not to exercise our dominion selfishly, grabbing any resources we want at any time no matter what the cost. Rather, we exercise dominion in a way that respects both what God has created for us and the needs of our fellow man. Not only Genesis, but also the Old Testament land-use laws, teach us this.

*2. We are not the Caretaker.* Despite the many ways we fail to care for the world wisely, we still have this promise: "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). We must not be unfaithfully panicked over the prospect of environmental catastrophe. Although we have much ability to do harm to the earth, there are limits. Our God will keep this world for us until he decides to make it new again.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 1, 2014)

G-d underwrites the weather, guaranteeing the season and that we will not end up with the "Waterworld" film scenario


[BIBLE]Genesis 8:22[/BIBLE], [BIBLE]Genesis 9:11[/BIBLE]


One of the things that puzzled me was the claims to an Ice Age don't appear in the Bible. Yet if you look at Job 38, one of the oldest boos in the Bible you may have to think again.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 1, 2014)

Creationists (i.e. me) make a big deal of the pre-Flood/post-Flood climate change. We generally hold that it was the break up of tectonic plates and the release of heat energy that drove water high into the atmosphere which then rained down as ice. The rainbow was given not in the peace and quiet of the antediluvian world but when people were terrified as the earth ripped apart Genesis 10:25 refers to the land being ripped apart not apportioning different regions to individuals.

Maybe we should do a leaflet on the issue. A Jews for Jesus "broadside" (pamphlet?) would be Climate Change - been there and done that already (Noah). Might be timely given the film!


----------



## jandrusk (Apr 1, 2014)

I personally do not trust the global warming alarmists nor their data. Here is a good reason to be skeptical > ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails - National Climate Change | Examiner.com


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Apr 1, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> I personally do not trust the global warming alarmists nor their data.



Yet, we don't need to agree or disagree that climate change is happening now in order to see that our society, including many believers, has been a very poor steward of our environment. 

Our society has turned many of us into ravenous consumers. We exalt rapid depletion of fossil fuels, synthetic everything, biologically modified crops engineered to tolerate more pesticide (which we then eat) and Happy Meals. In my humble opinion, consumerism fosters a careless attitude about the world we are to be caretakers of. 

I know that not everyone lives like this, but the majority who do make a strong impact.


----------



## Edward (Apr 1, 2014)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I would be concerned about WHY your tap water isn't fit to drink. Though I don't know why your water is bad, it seems to point back to our contaminated environment.



You've been propagandized by the liberal establishment. The sulphur in the water in Midland and other places in Texas and the salt in the water in parts of north Texas are naturally occurring, not the result of human intervention. I've read that El Paso has a lower instance of manic depression because of the lithium in the water. 

Sulphur Springs and Mineral Wells; the Sulpher and Saline Rivers all got their names from naturally occurring 'contamination'. And you probably don't want to think about the health benefits of Radium Springs, Ga (self-warming water in winter).


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 1, 2014)

November 1976 cover of National Geographic: "The Coming Ice Age"

Love it.

The men of science remind me of the level of Dante's Inferno where people are attached to flags dragged about by the wind. Look at 2000 years of science on a scattergram and it is all over the place. Two thousand years of Christianity will leave you with one huge dot and a few outlying heresies.


----------



## J Miles (Apr 2, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Is there climate _change_? Yes there is. The climate is always changing. It depends on what one means by that. Of course, I am aware of how it is usually conceived of, but switching the name from global warming to climate change was a pretty sneaky move.



The term "global warming" is based off an increase in average temperature worldwide, not in any specific area of the globe.



bookslover said:


> ...why do liberals automatically think that it's a bad thing, and that something must be "done" about it? And why (aside from their typical arrogance about being able to control virtually everyone and everything) do they think it's possible to do anything about it? I remember, back in the 1970s, the cry was (and from some of the same people now whining about global warming) "global cooling" - we were supposed to be covered by ice within a decade of so. And we all know how that worked out! They also said there would be mass famines in the 1980s - I guess if you're going to be wrong, you might as well do it right!



Climate change is bad for a simple reason: people have spent a long time adapting to current weather patterns. If the oceans acidify it could also change the cost of food. There is also expected to be less water to go around in the Western US as more of the glaciers melt.

Climate Change: Effects


----------



## J Miles (Apr 2, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> I personally do not trust the global warming alarmists nor their data. Here is a good reason to be skeptical > ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails - National Climate Change | Examiner.com



Since your article is from 2009, you may not have heard that the scientists behind "Climategate" have been cleared of wrongdoing by a House of Commons Inquiry, an independent scientific panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.

The US Inspector General for the Department of Commerce "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".


----------



## Edward (Apr 2, 2014)

J Miles said:


> Since your article is from 2009, you may not have heard that the scientists behind "Climategate" have been cleared of wrongdoing by a House of Commons Inquiry, an independent scientific panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.
> 
> The US Inspector General for the Department of Commerce "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".



The fox has proclaimed the henhouse safe.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Apr 2, 2014)

Edward said:


> You've been propagandized by the liberal establishment. The sulphur in the water in Midland and other places in Texas and the salt in the water in parts of north Texas are naturally occurring, not the result of human intervention.



Glad to know that your water is not contaminated by mankind's carelessness.

As for being propagandized by the liberal establishment, I respectfully disagree.

It was my conservative Christian grandparents who first taught me to be a good steward of the earth the Lord gave us. They raised their family during the depression, and they used and re-used their resources frugally. They recycled everything. My grandpa used metal waste in his garage, or took it to the scrap yard where he was paid for it. My grandma mended and re-mended the clothing and turned scraps into quilts that grace my bed today. They took the magazines they had read to the "elderly" at the local senior center - this, when they were in their eighties. They burned the wood to heat his garage, and they recycled food waste into the compost bin, which nourished the food we ate from their garden. Grandpa's garage was filled with tools he was given in exchange for odd jobs done for the more well-off during the depression. 

As to whether our society damages our environment as a byproduct of our excesses - I don't think one needs to be a liberal to see this. I'm guilty of it too. Though I try to live responsibly, there are times when my schedule is so demanding that I do the fastest thing, rather than the right thing.

Just because liberals have taken up preserving the environment as their cause, does not mean that as Christians, we should not also be good stewards of the land - without worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 2, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> November 1976 cover of National Geographic: "The Coming Ice Age"



Well it works both ways. A couple days ago I found this book on my shelf called _Handbook on Population_ by a Robert L. Sassone. It was written in 1978 and is basically a defense of population growth in the face of the alarmists. We aren't running out of resources. Water quality's not a problem. Nuclear power is safe. You get the idea. On the subject of climate change it says, "In spite of evidence of cooling trends it appears that the Arctic ice is melting at a rate which would free the Arctic ocean of ice by 2000 AD," (p. 140). The author is uncertain of future trends but says that if we needed to raise the earth's temperature we "can release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" (p. 141). It seems conservatives were fine with the idea that increasing carbon dioxide increases global temperatures when it helped their argument in the '70s.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 2, 2014)

SRoper said:


> The author is uncertain of future trends but says that if we needed to raise the earth's temperature we "can release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" (p. 141). It seems conservatives were fine with the idea that increasing carbon dioxide increases global temperatures when it helped their argument in the '70s.



I remember those debates well, and your last sentence brought a wry smile.

Just a general observation about these things: we ought to be better stewards, no question. In some ways we collectively have gotten better (I remember the Hudson River was considered too dangerous to stick your toe in, now it is much cleaner; we are much better on air pollution than we were in the 60s, etc.). Other ways, we are perhaps worse. As a once-upon-a-time scientist, I sometimes am dismayed at the alarmism I've seen both on both swings of the pendulum. Rarely is the overarching tendency toward equilibrium (which I consider to be the balancing hand of God) seriously discussed.

For example, I looked at some of the recent CO2 models, and they will say warmer oceans will result in lower CO2 solubility (reducing removal from the atmosphere), but seem to forget other aspects of equilibrium, such as increased plankton growth, which results in increased carbon sequestration. 

And so forth....


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 3, 2014)

Edward, the fox has proclaimed the henhouse safe indeed. That the East Anglians were proclaimed free of wrongdoing by those who work shoulder to shoulder with them, organize their grants, and promote the same agenda as they do should be no great surprise. I always wonder just how truly unbiased a man can be when he must perpetuate a certain line of thinking for his paycheque to continue showing up in his mailbox, whether the data supports it or not. Were Dawkins to say, 'yes, this is all a sham, the Almighty did create the heavens, sea, and all that in them is in six days', his position as an evolutionary biologist at Oxford would come to a dramatic end, and his books sales would no doubt slump. If I want a grant to study the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits, I would be hard pressed to see a dime from anyone. But if I want to investigate the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits in the context of global warming, it would be a whole different story. I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.


----------



## Edward (Apr 3, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.



Start looking for the word 'consensus' in the discussions on 'climate change'. They are trying to shut down debate and avoid appeals to evidence.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Apr 3, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.



I think not, for those who have arrived at their conclusions before gathering data.


----------



## J Miles (Apr 3, 2014)

Edward said:


> J Miles said:
> 
> 
> > Since your article is from 2009, you may not have heard that the scientists behind "Climategate" have been cleared of wrongdoing by a House of Commons Inquiry, an independent scientific panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.
> ...



I will assume from your statement you were implying that the before mentioned individual was in bed with some form of secret conspiracy to defraud the government or the people of the United States.

I thought it was against the 9th commandment and forum rules to spread false testimony or to engage in slander. 

I think accusing any official of criminal wrongdoing with no evidence would fall under that category. You and I both know that if I changed the words "did not" to "did" you would have fully supported the statement, despite not knowing who wrote the report or even having read the report yourself you pronounce judgment upon them for a mere statement which does not agree with your own preconceived opinion.

That is hypocrisy.


----------



## J Miles (Apr 3, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> That the East Anglians were proclaimed free of wrongdoing by those who work shoulder to shoulder with them, organize their grants, and promote the same agenda as they do should be no great surprise.



You again form a conspiracy theory lacking in evidence. You further your shame by comparing your nonsensical theory to the Puritans being arrested for non-conformity to the Anglican church. That is disgusting.

If we are persecuted, we must be persecuted because are righteous, not because we want to disagree with science over something not even in the bible.



kvanlaan said:


> I always wonder just how truly unbiased a man can be when he must perpetuate a certain line of thinking for his paycheque to continue showing up in his mailbox, whether the data supports it or not.



Can you even name the above mentioned official, let alone can you present actual evidence against him? Or his conclusion the only reason for stating that he has a conflict of interest.



kvanlaan said:


> Were Dawkins to say, 'yes, this is all a sham, the Almighty did create the heavens, sea, and all that in them is in six days', his position as an evolutionary biologist at Oxford would come to a dramatic end, and his books sales would no doubt slump.



Your logic failing, you introduce an example using Dawkins to illustrate a conflict of interest where there is none. You have not proven that the inspector even has a conflict of interest, let alone that he sells books or lectures like Dawkins.



kvanlaan said:


> If I want a grant to study the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits, I would be hard pressed to see a dime from anyone.



A US researcher was recently paid $385,000 dollars to study duck genitalia for the government.

Besides the government of Canada has already studied nut gathering habits of most squirrel species anyways.

They also pay several hundred thousand dollars each year to study owl scat at a university level.

I am not joking.

Government’s wasteful spending includes $385G duck penis study | New York Post



kvanlaan said:


> But if I want to investigate the effects of seasonal changes on squirrels' nut gathering habits in the context of global warming, it would be a whole different story. I don't know that it even constitutes empirical study anymore.



Squirrels are important to both forestry and the fur industry. Ironically, this is not the first time Puritans have conflicted with squirrels. In over 150 years of settlement in New England they still had no idea how trees reproduced, or how they spread.

In the end it was the squirrels.

There have been few useful points mentioned in this thread, so I am done here.


----------



## Edward (Apr 3, 2014)

J Miles said:


> I will assume from your statement you were implying that the before mentioned individual was in bed with some form of secret conspiracy to defraud the government or the people of the United States.
> 
> I thought it was against the 9th commandment and forum rules to spread false testimony or to engage in slander.
> 
> ...






> Inhofe released a statement thanking the Inspector General and highlighting the eight messages singled out for detailed review. In the statement, Inhofe says, "This report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation."
> 
> However, the Inspector General concluded that there was no evidence of any such manipulation.


 Post Carbon - Commerce Dept. report clears U.S. scientists in 'climategate'

From the IG's response: http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf (emphasis supplied)



> In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA _inappropriately _ manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.



So the question isn't whether the data was manipulated, the question is whether the manipulation was 'inappropriate'. 

But I recommend that all interested read the report themselves and draw their own conclusions. 



J Miles said:


> accusing any official of criminal wrongdoing



I'm going to have to demand a retraction of that statement.


----------



## Free Christian (Apr 3, 2014)

What do they blame for changes from long ago? Places that in the Bible, and history shows as well, that were once thriving and alive but are now desolate and almost desert like. They now dig up from under the desert type regions proof of long ago civilisations that once were there when things were much different.
Places that had agriculture, water but now the area is desolate. In Australia in some of our desert regions are small pockets here and there of almost tropical like environments that once would have been very much larger but are now just remnants. Proof of a world in decline and changing as it winds down.
Yes I believe man has a lot to answer for in regards to his stewardship of the land/world but change has been occurring long before our modern day impact with industrialisation. Like my sister once said, I suppose it makes people feel better to tell them "we have made a mess but we can make it better by doing this and doing that" as opposed to telling them "we live in a sinful world in decline that is only finite and have a God to answer to."


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 4, 2014)

Um, Mr Miles, the reason I use the term 'East Anglians' has nothing to do with Puritans (or Anglicans) but everything to do with the University of East Anglia, where the climate charlatans who conducted this 'research' were based.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 4, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> Um, Mr Miles, the reason I use the term 'East Anglians' has nothing to do with Puritans (or Anglicans) but everything to do with the University of East Anglia, where the climate charlatans who conducted this 'research' were based. Just sayin'. Kool-aid, anyone?


[video=youtube;V3FnpaWQJO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0[/video]


----------

