NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:09 pm

I was once told - in a lecture on 'security' - that sending a radio message 'in clear' was the equivalent of sending a letter without bothering to put it in an envelope. And I think most of us realise that sending an email is even LESS secure.

But not, apparently, the scientists at the British University of East Anglia, who are deeply involved in the 'climate change industry.' They sent hundreds of emails to each other hatching plans to falsify and distort their research findings, and even suppress results which did not support their case - their claims that not only is 'global warming' occurring at a rapidly-increasing rate, but that there is no shadow of doubt that it is 'man-made,' rather than a natural phenomenon.

Some hundreds of their emails were duly hacked, and have now been published in full. The Head of the University's Climatic Research Unit, Professor Phil Jones, has already been stood down; and further academic 'scalps' will undoubtedly follow.

Many of the emails appear to be concerned with getting round the inconvenient fact that global temperatures appear not actually to have been increasing during the last ten years or so. Significant quotes are:-

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow %u2014 even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate."

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...s-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

Plenty more on the net if you do a search.

Topical issue here in Australia, where, within the last couple of days, we just narrowly escaped a multi-billion-dollar additional taxation programme on carbon generation in all its forms (by the skin of our teeth, it was literally just a matter of a very few votes not going the government's way in the Senate).

My own position on 'global warming' has always been that it is high time the world made a determined effort to restrain, and if possible reduce, levels of atmospheric pollution, because of the health risks; but that I have never been at all sure that it is the result of 'global warming' (merely because it is an historical fact that the world has experienced many pretty substantial variations in temperatures, both ways, over the centuries). As recently as the early 19th. Century, for example, people used to skate on the River Thames in London (which has never frozen over in living memory) every winter, while during the same period Royal Navy explorers were pictured walking around on icefloes in the Northwest Passage in their ordinary uniforms.

Anyway, the emails appear to confirm what most of us probably sensed long ago - that a 'global warming industry' has grown up, and that (like all other industries) it has produced the usual proportion of crooks and charlatans on both sides of the argument...........

[Edited 2009-12-04 08:21:14]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:50 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
that sending a radio message 'in clear' was the equivalent of sending a letter without bothering to put it in an envelope.

Aren't they called "postcards"? Having a good time on vacation wish you were here? wink   duck 

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Anyway, the emails appear to confirm what most of us probably sensed long ago - that a 'global warming industry' has grown up, and that (like all other industries) it has produced the usual proportion of crooks and charlatans on both sides of the argument...........

As I prepare to go out and brush the snow off my trucks windshield in preperation to leave for work several hours early due to the unprecedented 2nd straight snowfall in as many years here in Houston, Texas I shall ponder your post to take my mind off all those idiots that think that 4X4 means "exempt from laws of physics"!!  cold 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:55 pm

This is a decent op-ed from one of the scientists whose email was stolen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000...48704107104574571613215771336.html


We'll see how this develops, but I agree with much of what he says. As I've heard numerous times before, everyone is bias, no exceptions. Everyone knows to expect oil companies and the like to be bias in their self-interest, but one should never assume the other lobby, regardless of who they work for, to be free of bias. I think the difference here is that it's pretty obvious which way oil companies would lean. When it comes to publicly-funded research, it isn't so clear cut because it can literally lean in any way.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Derico
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:58 pm

I think it's pretty childish for people to just act like an ostriche and bury their head in the sands based on a couple of emails. Or to score political points.

I've never believed in the outright alarmism or hysteria of global warming, but I do think human activities affect the world, either climatically, or in terms of pollution, health, etc.

To me you have two very political sides: one that's anti-development, and used ''Global Warming'', to stop all kinds of development economically. And now you have a new reactionary wing that uses Global Warming as a conspiratorial concept to try to destroy any environmental safeguards.

Right now, there is no happy medium were economics are considered in a comprehensive way alongside protecting finite resources and human (and yes, animal), wellbeing. It's all about pointing fingers and ideology. Ridiculous.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:28 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
My own position on 'global warming' has always been that it is high time the world made a determined effort to restrain, and if possible reduce, levels of atmospheric pollution, because of the health risks; but that I have never been at all sure that it is the result of 'global warming' (merely because it is an historical fact that the world has experienced many pretty substantial variations in temperatures, both ways, over the centuries).

That pretty well sums up my position on this, too. But I'm not at all surprised by what is now coming out from the "scientific" community embroiled in what has become more of a religious debate than a scientific debate. The commitment to scientific method developed over more than 100 years has been largely abandoned in favour of PR and advocacy.

As a journalist, I've seen this happen in everything from environmental studies on logging effects to sea lice infestations of fish farms. It's all done under the rubric of "the end justifies the means" and that has now replaced scientific method in discourse. It makes it impossible for uneducated louts like me to know who to trust and believe any more.

I think it is exceedingly healthy that this is being exposed for all to see, and one can hope that out of it will come a return to the true principles of scientific method. One can also hope that the move to reduce energy consumption and therefore a whole range of pollutants will also continue -- that is a good thing in itself.

Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
I shall ponder your post to take my mind off all those idiots that think that 4X4 means "exempt from laws of physics"!!

Thanks for my laugh of the day. We don't agree on much, but on this you're right on the money. And on the same theme, Whistler/Blackcomb opened in mid-November this year, two weeks early, and had a total of 560 cm of snow (about 20 feet) for a record November snowfall. Must be warm snow.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:38 pm

Please read the following, it provides a bit of insight to what the emails are discussing and what the explanations for them are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ves/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/

Personally I think it's a new low in the history of science, that one side have stooped so low as to employ illegal methods just to win the argument. One thing that is worth pointing out, is that since the emails are purportedly a random selection, that means someone must have gone through them and picked out the emails, data etc. that they wanted to present. In other words, we're not getting the whole lot.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:40 pm

Nav 20 that is a great post ...not because we agree but because it is logical. Look I don't want factories pumping out pollution either , I want us to be responsible stewards of the earth. I just don't agree that we need to go to a over arching "state" regulatory mandate system and increase taxes to do it.

I concede that some laws are required ... but if we let them run wild they will be seriously hampering industry and raising the costs of doing business.

The global warming cabal in a nutshell is trying to do one thing ... kill small and medium size industry. They want to raise the costs so that only huge multinational corps can afford to play . They know that they can control large multinationals with unions and lobbyists... that is the program. Al Gore wants every corporation in the world to pay him funny money every time they want to expand or add capability.... its a mafioso program ..period.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Flighty
Posts: 7860
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:07 pm



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 6):
I just don't agree that we need to go to a over arching "state" regulatory mandate system and increase taxes to do it.

It seems like you don't acknowledge that cutting Co2, and increasing forestry is probably necessary to save the world.

The nice thing about this issue is, it will work out. Eventually the facts will come out (one way or another) and we will do whatever is necessary.

But, if we all do decide Co2 is a major problem, then of course the govt will "tax" it because that is how people control pollution. Bush's "voluntary reductions" idea was cute but has no hope of actually working. Govt regulation has done wonders to decrease pollution worldwide. We forget how successful the concept is. It is what keeps us safe, and yet some people deride this as a "tax" or "intrusion" or whatever. Exactly, that's what a government is. It governs.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20143
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:19 pm

This is all very concerning. Science is based on facts. When you have to lie to make your point, then you poison all science, everywhere.

That said, the fact that this happened does not make global warming invalid. It simply adds to the confusion.

The fact remains that we are pulling vast quantities of carbon out of the ground, where it has not been part of the ecosphere for hundreds of millions of years, and we are dumping it back into the ecosphere. At the same time, we are inhibiting the ecosphere's ability to buffer that carbon by deforestation.

Furthermore, it is obvious to even the casual observer that the climate is changing all over the world. In Southeastern Michigan, it was typical every year when I was 12 and younger to go cross-country skiing on local lakes, and for snow to fall in large quantities around late November/early December and stick until March. Today, the lakes rarely freeze over and when they do, not enough for safe walking. Similar observations have been made all over the world. Glaciers are receding faster than they are advancing, ice shelves in the Antarctic are perilously close to breaking off, and the levels of Arctic ice during the summer are decreasing.

Whether carbon dioxide is as much of a contributor to global warming as we thought, it will still be important for us to control it. But we also do have to investigate the real cause of this climate change. The change is real. Nobody can deny that. This whole controversy muddies the cause, however.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:23 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
then of course the govt will "tax" it because that is how people control pollution.

 redflag  No , the fed sets standards and passes laws if the people and their Representatives support it. We do not tax in order to change behavior.... that is another left wing idea that is totally contrary to the constitution. If you believe that , then any cause deemed proper by the federal government can be taxed into policy rather than constitutional procedures being followed.

In other words ... would you support a right wing tax on abortions or gay marriage.? See my point ? Say the right wing takes power and says , sure you can get a abortion but its going to cost you 25% more tax ? Would that be good ? Policy though taxation is wrong!
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:38 pm



Quoting CPH-R (Reply 5):
Please read the following, it provides a bit of insight to what the emails are discussing and what the explanations for them are.

Please disclose that RealClimate.com is the site belonging to the people implicated in fraud according to the emails disclosed. Citing it as a source without that disclaimer could lead to people here thinking you are trying to deceive them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
This is all very concerning. Science is based on facts. When you have to lie to make your point, then you poison all science, everywhere.

 checkmark 

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
At the same time, we are inhibiting the ecosphere's ability to buffer that carbon by deforestation.

Not true. New growth is a net CO2 sink, where old growth is at best CO2 neutral (decomposition of biomass puts out CO2).

There are plenty of good reasons to not pollute (and I mean actual polutants - stuff that causes harm, not CO2), and plenty of good reasons not to cut down forests willy nilly. No need to engage in pseudo-science to support the efficient use of resources.
 
avent
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:53 pm



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
We do not tax in order to change behavior....

Yes we do - alcohol and tobacco being examples that both republican and democrat administrations regularly increase both for revenue and usage control reasons.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20143
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:59 pm



Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 10):

Not true. New growth is a net CO2 sink, where old growth is at best CO2 neutral (decomposition of biomass puts out CO2).

New growth buffers more CO2 than old growth, but old growth still does buffer some. Or so I was taught in my college eco classes. Certainly, deforestation is not helping the process, especially when a lot of that wood is being burned.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
We do not tax in order to change behavior....

We don't? That's news to me. And here I thought alcohol and tobacco taxes had something to do with it. Let alone tax breaks for couples with kids...
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:10 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
New growth buffers more CO2 than old growth, but old growth still does buffer some. Or so I was taught in my college eco classes. Certainly, deforestation is not helping the process, especially when a lot of that wood is being burned.

Old growth is considered carbon-neutral -- takes in about the same as it puts out, and the older it gets the more it puts out. Newly planted forests are good carbon sinks for about 150 years (depending on species, geography etc.).

You're right -- if the wood is being burned that takes all that carbon built up over decades and pumps it back into the atmosphere in hours. If, on the other hand, it is used for lumber, then a well-run, sustainable forestry operation can generate carbon credits by aggressively replanting what it logs -- which is what happens here. General rule of thumb in BC is four trees are planted for every one cut down.

Deforestation occurs when you knock down the forest and build a shopping centre, or turn the land over to agriculture. That's a problem.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7860
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:11 pm



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
would you support a right wing tax on abortions or gay marriage.? See my point ?

No... a tax is an ok way to augment the accounting for the "true" financial picture. If there were a financial reason to talk about taxing gay marriage (fact is, it's already taxed because gays are treated unequally by tax laws AFAIK), then fine.

We tax cigarettes. Partly on the rationale that they increase health care costs (although that is untrue).

It is about accounting. If you damage the environment, someone else has to clean it up (if the law so declares). So, to keep an even balance sheet you need to pay for cleanup. Otherwise you are stealing a resource. It just depends on what your standards are for poaching and / or similar. It is illegal to shoot too many deer when you go deer hunting. In an industrial context, it would be wise to trade such permits in a market, if deer are worth $10B each for example. Then it is really important to keep track of them, and allocate soberly.

Maybe your view is that environmental damage is not the legal responsibility of companies or citizens, and it never should be. That is a perfectly okay viewpoint, but maybe it will change if global warming is revealed to be undeniably true. At that point, there is an alternative financial model that does take environmental drawdowns / debts into account. In that model, such cleanup costs must be paid as a business expense, like sewage, OSHA standards, fire escapes, etc.

Just to mandate cuts would not be efficient.
 
avent
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:34 pm

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 10):
Please disclose that RealClimate.com is the site belonging to the people implicated in fraud according to the emails disclosed.

And please disclose that no fraud has been proven in these emails that have been taken out of context, and also that the emails do not constitute published scientific results, and while you're at it, the emails were provided by anti global warming thieves.

Isn't disclosure fun!

[edit to correct spelling]

[Edited 2009-12-04 13:35:55 by avent]
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:41 am



Quoting Avent (Reply 15):
And please disclose that no fraud has been proven in these emails that have been taken out of context, and also that the emails do not constitute published scientific results, and while you're at it, the emails were provided by anti global warming thieves.

Avent, with respect:-

1. A tenured head of department at a (reasonably-distinguished) university has already been stood down. Agreed, it doesn't 'prove' anything (yet) but, to coin a phrase, 'there's no harmful and visible discharge of carbon into the atmosphere without fire'...  Smile

2. The issue appears to be that the emails were about the direct opposite - a lot of them are concerned with a conspiracy to make sure that scientific results that didn't support the 'global warming is all the fault of big business' case were NOT published.

3. Your reference to 'anti-global warming thieves' (which term I take to refer to quite a few of us contributing to this thread) is duly noted. But I think you probably meant 'PRO-global warming thieves'?  Smile

One thing that has always struck me about the 'global warming is all the fault of industry' thesis is that it's an open invitation to people to over-indulge their (entirely natural and human) jealousy of the rich, privileged business guys who seem to do nothing but drive round town in big cars and enjoy lots of first-class air travel all over the world.

On the other hand, I am fond of irony, as you'll probably have noticed. And I find it richly ironic that Professor Phil Jones, over the last few years, has probably spent a lot more time than the rest of us jetting about in the stratosphere (at other peoples' expense) attending conferences to press for, among other things, restrictions on aircraft emissions......

I suspect that those days are over for him, for some time at least. When the powers-that-be have completed their investigations into his conduct, my hunch is that he'll maybe have to buy himself a secondhand bike so he can travel down to the Labour Exchange to collect his dole.

Though if that does happen, he'll at least be able to claim credit for having reduced his own personal 'emissions' to the absolute minimum!  Smile
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:50 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
On the other hand, I am fond of irony, as you'll probably have noticed. And I find it richly ironic that Professor Phil Jones, over the last few years, has probably spent a lot more time than the rest of us jetting about in the stratosphere (at other peoples' expense) attending conferences to press for, among other things, restrictions on aircraft emissions......

His Emails were extremely dumb and I suspect any professional organization of which he might have been a member would be examining its codes of ethics re his continued membership. I know Aus IMM would be.

However, it is a bit early to leap to judgment. As Avent writes, at this stage they are as much a confection of his opponents as they are a striking example of anti science forces. The CRU is under a cloud but WADR Nav, it has not yet gone the way you confidently forecast for EADS some years ago.

Just a caution to some of those leaping up and down with untrammeled joy, the records under attack would also be about the same as those being used to support theories of global cooling.  gnasher   grumpy 

And as I keep on saying, to support continued reliance on fossil fuels is madness, because we will soon run out of cheaply recoverable fossil fuels. Even the dreaded coal. Coking coal first - probably within 10 years there will be a decline - and then steam coals not long after and of course where the likes of EXXON-Mobil think the reserves are to support increases in oil production up to 120 million barrels a day are? Who knows, they don't. What are they smoking there? You could move to oil shales, but none of you would be willing to pay for it. So whether the global warming panic does it, or the inevitability of limited reserves does it, the carbon future is limited. Best get used to it.

Must write to a friend at SASOL!!
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:45 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
WADR Nav, it has not yet gone the way you confidently forecast for EADS some years ago.

These things take time, Baroque.  Smile We'll have a better idea which way the investigation of THAT stuffup is going in a few weeks.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1adc331e-dd4f-11de-ad60-00144feabdc0.html

Mind you, that's only the civil case. Any criminal proceedings will come even later.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:24 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
One thing that has always struck me about the 'global warming is all the fault of industry' thesis is that it's an open invitation to people to over-indulge their (entirely natural and human) jealousy of the rich, privileged business guys who seem to do nothing but drive round town in big cars and enjoy lots of first-class air travel all over the world.

 Big grin This must be a first for me Nav. Reading your post and agreeing with most everything in it. Thanks for the reasonable voice in the discussion. I must admit I was quite shocked to read it.

They are all hypocrites Nav. They Alarmist burn more CO2 than the average person yet they want to limit us.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
Who knows, they don't. What are they smoking there? You could move to oil shales, but none of you would be willing to pay for it. So whether the global warming panic does it, or the inevitability of limited reserves does it, the carbon future is limited. Best get used to it.

Then what spend trillions to stop using fossil fuels? We do all know that it is at the best a medium term use for us. Use the money to combat poverty/AIDS/Cancer and anyhing else that afflicts this planet. To think we can control the temps is madness and arrogant. Controlling CO2 will only do one thing and that is control the masses and our freedoms.

If the enviros had not stopped Nuke plant construction in this country our CO2 level would be lower today. So a large chunk of the blame needs to be heaped on them.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12495
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:20 pm

What about the fact that some global warming/climate change research has funding from major corporations including oil and coal producers? As a result, you may have scientist trying to please their funders rather than being unbiased. Then you have other researchers who are trying to go for academic glory, with the resulting personal and financial rewards from supporting Global warming concepts. Add to this the ability over the last 20-30 years to measure our atmosphere to more minute and accurate degrees and as to past patterns as well as the use of computer modeling with it's issues can cause confusion. If there has been academic/scientific malfeasance, than those persons can be punished in various ways.

Still, good long-term science work has sometimes involved major challenges from those with opposing or varying views and is part of the scientific process and is important to assure accuracy. Scientists will have to 'tweak' factors to study the 'what if's'. You also have to deal with the andonital or short-term 'evidence' that often counters theories on global warming/climate change from patterns of warmer that normal or colder than normal tempatures, ice on local lakes, snow/rain amounts and so on that presents challanges to the average person.

There has been plenty of natural climate change cycles in the past as discussed in various books, science TV documentary programs and historical evidence. From about middle ages to about 1400-1500, there was a warm period allowing settlements in southern Greenland and eastern Canada. They had to disband them when the climate became colder. That cold cycle then ran from the 1500's to about the mid-1800's. The problem is the unknown factors from the exponential growth of the numbers of humans and burning of carbon based products that may be changing our climate since the beginning of the age of industrialization in the early to mid-1800's mainly in Europe and North America. Still, there is much evidence over the long term that were are in an overall natural 'warming' cycle.

Hopefully some balance as to the study of climate change will develop to prevent wrong headed moves that destroy rather than save lives.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:28 pm

Not much point in apportioning blame when there are not enough (cheap) carbon fuels to go round. Might be better to do something positive other than moan about the unfairness of it all?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:15 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
This is a decent op-ed from one of the scientists whose email was stolen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000....html

It really only says he still supports the theory of man-made global warming.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Furthermore, it is obvious to even the casual observer that the climate is changing all over the world. In Southeastern Michigan, it was typical every year when I was 12 and younger to go cross-country skiing on local lakes, and for snow to fall in large quantities around late November/early December and stick until March. Today, the lakes rarely freeze over and when they do, not enough for safe walking. Similar observations have been made all over the world. Glaciers are receding faster than they are advancing, ice shelves in the Antarctic are perilously close to breaking off, and the levels of Arctic ice during the summer are decreasing.

Whether carbon dioxide is as much of a contributor to global warming as we thought, it will still be important for us to control it. But we also do have to investigate the real cause of this climate change. The change is real. Nobody can deny that. This whole controversy muddies the cause, however.

Houston, TX has had more snowfall so far this year than Chicago, IL.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

Not sure wher Ski-Brule resort is, but they are reporting snow on thr ground between 6" and 26", depending on elevation. Apparently this is not machine made snow.

http://www.onthesnow.com/michigan/ski-brule/skireport.html#

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 10):
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 5):
Please read the following, it provides a bit of insight to what the emails are discussing and what the explanations for them are.

Please disclose that RealClimate.com is the site belonging to the people implicated in fraud according to the emails disclosed. Citing it as a source without that disclaimer could lead to people here thinking you are trying to deceive them.



Quoting Avent (Reply 15):
please disclose that no fraud has been proven in these emails that have been taken out of context, and also that the emails do not constitute published scientific results, and while you're at it, the emails were provided by anti global warming thieves.

Isn't disclosure fun!

Disclosure is fun. But, even though some of the hacked quotes are selected, there is still enough information that supporters of the man-made GW theory to prove they entended to discredit, through fradulent data and denying "peer-review" to those who support the opposite theory.

Keep in mind, that neither theory has been scinentificly proven. But also keep in mind, that these few scientist have probibly damaged science's image with the general population for decades to come.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
His Emails were extremely dumb and I suspect any professional organization of which he might have been a member would be examining its codes of ethics re his continued membership. I know Aus IMM would be.

Isn't that a little late now? Why hasn't these professional organizations been policing their mambers and ethics up to now? I don't know what these organizations have for an ethics policy, I assume it is similar to other organizations policies, but the strenght of the ethics policies do not seem to be the issue here. The issue seems to be enforcement of those ethics policies, or in the case the apparent lack of enforcement.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
Just a caution to some of those leaping up and down with untrammeled joy, the records under attack would also be about the same as those being used to support theories of global cooling

That is just it, my friend. Both sides of the GW debate only have theories, neither is proven. But one side used out right fraud to try to convince politicians and the population they were right. These guys, and their political cronies have jumped right out into a taxing scheme to advance their political agendas, and reduce political, and scientific, opposition to it.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
Controlling CO2 will only do one thing and that is control the masses and our freedoms.

that is soooo correct.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 19):
If the enviros had not stopped Nuke plant construction in this country our CO2 level would be lower today. So a large chunk of the blame needs to be heaped on them.

Correct.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
Might be better to do something positive other than moan about the unfairness of it all?

Perhaps, but here in the US, the silence of the news media, except FoxNews, is deafining. We cannot do something positive if the news and facts are withheld because of the news media's political agendas.

http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:36 pm



Quoting Avent (Reply 11):
Yes we do - alcohol and tobacco being examples that both republican and democrat administrations regularly increase both for revenue and usage control reasons.

And it is not right . They do it because they can get away with it and it singles out citizen users who pay more for their goods. That is the problem with communal care bestowed on us by the government.. they will find some reason to take from someone to help someone else.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
We don't? That's news to me. And here I thought alcohol and tobacco taxes had something to do with it. Let alone tax breaks for couples with kids...

I understand the idea of it Doc .... but I do not agree that the government should be able to tax a certain group higher or lower depending on their life style choices. Nor should it even be a issue ... why does the fed even need to tax certain things higher. If they were not involved in every aspect of out lives there would be no need for it .

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
Maybe your view is that environmental damage is not the legal responsibility of companies or citizens

If the guideline's and laws are clearly stated then the fines that the company pay for violating them go to remedy the damage. But the bureaucracy can not survive on fines alone ..they need a steady cash flow to roll in every month ,,,so they tax them.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
4holer
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:11 pm

Just sitting here wondering to myself, as to a hypotherical situation.
As I made clear in the last thread, I don't believe in AGW and am appalled at the cap and trade BS. But I'm wondering if I would be so opposed to a system by which a smaller, non-crippling tax on fossil fuels would be enacted, and the fund created by this would not go to less developed nations or Gore-ish traders of credit, but instead to an alt-fuel jackpot, if you will. A research pot of gold for a company or country to perfect an economic alternative, such as nuclear fusion or whatever. Or to fund such projects. I still don't love it, but it is much more acceptable than corrupt wealth distribution schemes. I don't know...
Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20143
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):

Houston, TX has had more snowfall so far this year than Chicago, IL.

Yes, and that's completely not right. The parts of the theory that hold that global warming will lead to an increase in bizarre and severe weather have been vindicated. More blizzards, but also more droughts and hurricanes.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Not sure wher Ski-Brule resort is, but they are reporting snow on thr ground between 6" and 26", depending on elevation. Apparently this is not machine made snow

Ski- Brule is in the UP.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Yes, and that's completely not right. The parts of the theory that hold that global warming will lead to an increase in bizarre and severe weather have been vindicated. More blizzards, but also more droughts and hurricanes.

Climate change is the remake of the global warming theory. Climate change is when they went to the chaos theory because the planet stopped warming. The Chaos theory was a great way to explain away any cooling or lack of warming. To say they have been vindicated is wishfull thinking. Global warming will bring more droughts, hurricanes and blizzards...what a coverall.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20143
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 26):
Global warming will bring more droughts, hurricanes and blizzards...what a coverall.

And it's true. We have been seeing more extreme weather than in the past, and more bizarre weather, like Houston getting more snow than Chicago.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:57 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
And it's true. We have been seeing more extreme weather than in the past, and more bizarre weather, like Houston getting more snow than Chicago.

At the end of the year Chicago will have way more snow that Houston. Has it never snowed in the Houston area in the last say 2000 years? Can you show me more bizarre weather that has never happened before or are you going to continue to Parrot the Associated press/CNN talking points.
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:03 pm

Speaking of Big Oil. A new article out showing one of the emails linking Jones and Co. to Big Oil.

Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support

Quote:
From: "Mick Kelly"
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

So much for using the Big Oil shill argument for the Deniers.
 
avent
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:12 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Disclosure is fun. But, even though some of the hacked quotes are selected, there is still enough information that supporters of the man-made GW theory to prove they entended to discredit, through fradulent data and denying "peer-review" to those who support the opposite theory.

Keep in mind, that neither theory has been scinentificly proven. But also keep in mind, that these few scientist have probibly damaged science's image with the general population for decades to come.

Actually, you have hit upon two fundamental and critical underlying issues.

First, there is the delusion that scientists are perfect and that any sloppiness in their casual discussions and their screwing around as they explore and work with data trying to see what fits and how it holds together is an indication of some terrible failure on their part. It is not. They are however expected to present a coherent and honest analysis when it gets to the publication stage, and furthermore, the publication stage doesn't really count unless it's peer reviewed.

This notion of perfection is probaly created through cultural mythology from TV crimelab shows and science fiction, none of which are close to what happens in reality, but the impression is left anyways. Science does not normally progress through scientists immediatly stumbling on crystal clear and unambiguous data. When detecting new phenomena, their data often merely provides a murky hint of a trend that takes time to explore. At this point there is often an existing paradigm or hypothesis or working model that best reflects their understanding of the data. The historical record ovewhelmingly justifies Global Warming. Some recent data does not fit with this, and to a scientist who is weighing a hundred years of data against 10 years, this does not immediately mean the working model is wrong, just that there is a contradiction to be resolved, or that there might be another process at work - all of which would require more detailed measurements - which is precisely what some of the emails show.

What most non-scientists do not understand, is the concern expressed by the scientist's email over the apparent inconsistency is exactly what should happen; they are concerned with a discrepency and want to see if it can be reconciled through increased data collection. If the increased data doesn't resolve the issue, then it's a strike against the operating hypothesis - not necessarily a fatal blow, but it would be a strike nonetheless. This is how we want science to work. We want our scientists to be concerned with discrepencies since that is how they integrate new measurements and revise models. It is absurd to think that every piece of inconsistent data justifies tossing out the current model.

Second, we have an increasing intolerance that goes along with our increased polarization where any tiny perceived transgression is magnified out of all proportion - look at the ridiculous nonsense concerning the nuts who crashed the party. As a society, we're just too trigger happy to not just criticize tho opposition, but to fight every issue as if it's the last battle of the war. We have these ludicrous childish and immature notions that good people and leaders are perfect to the n-th degree - GWB cannot possibly make a single error or he would be fatally flawed; Clinton fools around in the White House - by golly he's a total failure; Gate crashers got through federal security - the Obama administration has failed.

In this environment, the email of the scientists is just totally mis-understood and inflated in significance way beyond its significance, as if a few scientists represent the sum total of all climatological research.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:50 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Disclosure is fun. But, even though some of the hacked quotes are selected, there is still enough information that supporters of the man-made GW theory to prove they entended to discredit, through fradulent data and denying "peer-review" to those who support the opposite theory.

Hiding the data

Quote:
Hiding “Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden/written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.

Denying peer-review

Quote:
“Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment – McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 3 of the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.

Both from one of the persons whose private emails have been stolen and published without context: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

As for CRU attempting to discredit opponents, one can hardly blame them, seeing that they're talking privately about persons, whose sole purpose in life seems to be discrediting the work that CRU and other climate research institutions do.
 
mham001
Posts: 4347
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:00 pm



Quoting Avent (Reply 11):

Yes we do - alcohol and tobacco being examples that both republican and democrat administrations regularly increase both for revenue and usage control reasons.

Yes and no.

Many newer cigarette taxes are justified by throwing that money at Stop Smoking campaigns and the supposed increased health care costs.

Alcohol taxes are nothing but a money grab with no thought to usage control. For example, beer and alcohol are much more heavily taxed than wine in my state, because wine drinkers vote more often and have more money than beer drinkers, but a drunk is a drunk is a drunk and they all kill innocent people. You will not find any correlation between alcohol taxes and alcohol usage.

Both could be banned tomorrow and usage would drop dramatically. Far more than trying to tax it out of existence.

I find the whole cap and trade thing nothing more than a scam to separate people from their money.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:03 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Houston, TX has had more snowfall so far this year than Chicago, IL.

Global warming is causing my heating bill to go up so far this year.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Yes, and that's completely not right. The parts of the theory that hold that global warming will lead to an increase in bizarre and severe weather have been vindicated. More blizzards, but also more droughts and hurricanes.

It has snowed in Houston before in December. This is just the earliest on record. It actually snowed here in December last year as well. It never lasts more than a few hours and is always gone be the middle of the next day. So it's not really bizarre or extreme. Without referencing any material my personal opinion is that it has been cooler the past two winters than the previous 4 that we have lived here.

As to hurricanes and droughts, I think we can all agree that the amount of hurricanes that have formed as well as hit the U.S. is probably down since the 2005 season correct? As to droughts I would think the one that created the dustbowl in the 1930's still ranks as the worst in this country. Every year it seems as if a different part of the U.S. is hit by drought. It was the hill country of Texas this year, the year before wasn't it the southeast? Up in the plains the year before?

But then we have to remember one of the three pillars of the global warming religion, because that's what it is, a religion, is "Hot, cold, wet, or dry it's all caused by Global Warming".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20143
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:20 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 33):

It has snowed in Houston before in December. This is just the earliest on record. It actually snowed here in December last year as well. It never lasts more than a few hours and is always gone be the middle of the next day. So it's not really bizarre or extreme. Without referencing any material my personal opinion is that it has been cooler the past two winters than the previous 4 that we have lived here.

The common objection to Global Warming is "we had a cold day here!"

There is a difference between Global and Local. A global warming can make certain areas of the globe much colder. It makes other areas of the globe much warmer.

The global climate is changing. This is a fact and it isn't open to debate. The debate is why it is changing. CO2 emissions are part of it. That's also a fact that isn't open to debate. The part that's open to debate is how much of a part CO2 emissions are.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:08 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The common objection to Global Warming is "we had a cold day here!"

True, and as I described, without looking at any data my personal impression is that the past two winters have been cooler than the previous four that we have lived in Houston.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The global climate is changing.

The global climate is always changing, has always been changing, and will always continue to change no matter whether man is here or not. This is part of the fallacy of the global warming religion, that if man does certain things we can some how "control" how much change takes places or the speed at which it changes.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The debate is why it is changing

I don't know why, it changes, it has changed, it will change, again no matter whether man is here or not. The debate would more correctly be centered on "how" it is changing so as to best understand what we can do to mitigate the damge those changes are going to cause.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The part that's open to debate is how much of a part CO2 emissions are.

And as these emails show, some were intent on secretly rigging the argument.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:25 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 35):
This is part of the fallacy of the global warming religion, that if man does certain things we can some how "control" how much change takes places or the speed at which it changes.

Source? Lots of scientists would disagree with you.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:43 pm



Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 36):
Source? Lots of scientists would disagree with you.

Lots of priests, rabbi's, and mulllah's would disagree with anyone that says that God doesn't exist. These emails may show that the "science" of global warming is really the "religion" of global warming since they infer that an amount of "faith" is involved in believing the "science".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:51 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 37):
These emails may show that the "science" of global warming is really the "religion" of global warming since they infer that an amount of "faith" is involved in believing the "science".

There is absolutely no evidence that these emails indicate any sort of global fraud regarding global warming. One thing is for certain, however. Skeptics have clawed and clawed at these emails, taking quotes out of context, and generally not understanding what's going on.

I'll wait for more, legitimate evidence that shows clear fraud and tampering with data, rather than out-of-context "buzzwords."

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:58 pm



Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 38):
Skeptics have clawed and clawed at these emails, taking quotes out of context, and generally not understanding what's going on.

As the global warming religion has done the same to attempt to discredit those that don't believe as they do.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 38):
I'll wait for more, legitimate evidence that shows clear fraud and tampering with data, rather than out-of-context "buzzwords."

As more and more of us will wait for real science that shows what is happening rather than what is appearing more and more to be "guesswork".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:03 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):

It really only says he still supports the theory of man-made global warming.

He denounces the Al Gore type excessive alarmism/absolutism/radicalism and that's the good thing about the article. He also touches on the politics and how it corrupts individuals, leading even scientists to employ less than ethical/scientific means to achieve the ends of proving they are right. That he supports anthropogenic global warming isn't really the point of the article.

[Edited 2009-12-05 20:08:37]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:51 pm

Climate is way too complex to predict with our current technology. I smile when they declare that 1932 was the hottest year on record. Compared to what? heck in 1932 thermometers were pretty useless for less than 1 degree measurements, and then again the place where they did the measurements changed.
Now we have altered data, so basically we are in square one.

We have the Pacific decadal oscillation, the Atlantic one, the seasons, the planet progression, some active volcanoes and who knows what else, and yet they pin point the weather on Co2 emissions. Guess Al Gore will have some inconvenient truths to explain.

Regards
TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
avent
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:10 am



Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 41):
Now we have altered data, so basically we are in square one.

What altered data?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:57 am



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 20):
What about the fact that some global warming/climate change research has funding from major corporations including oil and coal producers?

Source.

Exxon Mobil (a.k.a Big Bad Wolf): 23 million US$
US taxpayer: 79 billion US$

Yes, lets blame those corporations.

Quoting Avent (Reply 30):
they are concerned with a discrepency and want to see if it can be reconciled through increased data collection

No, thats not what those emails (and the code!) show. They show "scientists" making the current data fit the theory.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
There is a difference between Global and Local.

If we are to believe the AGW industry, the difference is: cooling episodes are local, warming episodes prove global warming.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:44 pm



Quoting Avent (Reply 42):
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 41):
Now we have altered data, so basically we are in square one.

What altered data?

Still burying your head in the sand?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 43):
Quoting Avent (Reply 30):
they are concerned with a discrepency and want to see if it can be reconciled through increased data collection

No, thats not what those emails (and the code!) show. They show "scientists" making the current data fit the theory.

Correct.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 43):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
There is a difference between Global and Local.

If we are to believe the AGW industry, the difference is: cooling episodes are local, warming episodes prove global warming.

Correct.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 43):
Exxon Mobil (a.k.a Big Bad Wolf): 23 million US$
US taxpayer: 79 billion US$

Therein is the modivation for the "scientists" (who fudged data). They are trying to protect the government grants. In other words, they protect their incomes and future sources of money. They have been doing this since they tried the "global cooling" scam in 1975.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/cli...intelligent-technology-sutton.html
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:33 pm

Let the hypocritical propaganda show begin!!!!!!!!!!! Our tax dollars at work. I do not suppose these bearucrats are staying at the sleep Inn and eating at Wendy's?

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough


Quote:
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...vate-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

The "save the world summit" Was it not ten plus years ago that Al Gore said we had ten years left?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:54 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 45):
The "save the world summit" Was it not ten plus years ago that Al Gore said we had ten years left?

OMG, no, it was in 1997, that was 12 years ago. I guess we are all dead now.
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:13 pm

The Fiction Of Climate Science
Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM EST
Why the climatologists get it wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/cli...intelligent-technology-sutton.html

Another article on the Global cooling scare of the 70's of which it seems that the alarmist dismiss.
 
avent
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:48 pm



Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 43):
Quoting Avent (Reply 30):
they are concerned with a discrepency and want to see if it can be reconciled through increased data collection

No, thats not what those emails (and the code!) show. They show "scientists" making the current data fit the theory.

Where? And I don't consider opinion as to what terms like 'trick' mean since scientists use tricks all the time at their discretions whether its in choosing a particular filter window, or filter type or whatever. Since you're asserting fraud, I want you to back up your statement., and will also condemn it with you - if it truly exists. Just to be clear, bias is not evidence of fraud, nor is judgement; scientists are however supposed to provide their reasons in peer reviewed papers for their judgement calls and to document them accordingly.

As I see it, the emails reveal a certain degree of knee-jerk reaction on the part of the scientists and their lashing out in response to the disgustingly sleazy personal attacks made on them - accusing them of only being in it for the money or being socialists and wealth redistributers. (These attacks speak volumes about the critics - it shows the world they live in and what their norms are.)

Do I wish the scientists had been more reserved in their responses? Of course. But they are human and are fairly clueless in human relationship management skills (now there's a surprise.)

Some have huge egos - just like any other group of workers - and there have been plenty of ego-driven disputes over the ages where bias has temporarily trumped accuracy. However, the use of peer-reviewed publications tends to remedy these and concensus emerges if there is sufficient data to resolve an issue. In some ways this instance is fascinating, because the division is between scientists and the anti-intellectualism that has been trying to shield corporate america from responsibilty for pollution, tobacco-cancer relationships, the anti-abortion clique, and the prayer in school crowd. All of these have hated lens provided by science that casts light on their innate ugliness. Right now they are salivating at the prospect of humiliating science, but this will be a short term gain at best.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: 'Climategate' - A New Angle On Global Warming

Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:23 pm

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 This guy has done some pretty good videos on the science and the myths behind climate change, all done in 'down to earth' language so everyone can keep up. And before you go into a hizzyfit, the guy also points out some of the things Al Gore doesn't mention.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 47):
Another article on the Global cooling scare of the 70's of which it seems that the alarmist dismiss.

Which didn't exist outside the print media. Long story short, Time Magazine interviewed some scientists who all agreed that the earth was cooling, because that's what the data was telling them.

Time Magazine then took the liberty of quoting some unnamed 'Climatological Cassandras' as saying they were becoming increasingly apprehensive of this colling, and that they feared a new ice age.

[Edited 2009-12-07 09:30:30]

[Edited 2009-12-07 09:31:44]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Kiwirob and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos