After the large volume of climate skeptic/denier comments that came in yesterday disagreeing with my post on the relative insignificance of ClimateGate, I feel that more needs to be said. This time, let me couch my argument in a different format, so that perhaps it will be better understood.
Those of us who think this is all smoke and no fire are starting from the following position: There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused. So then we pose the following question: What would it take for “ClimateGate” to significantly weaken this body of evidence in a serious way?
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don’t think this is remotely true, but let’s assume it.
Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :
1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.
2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.
Neither one of these is true, which is why I can say confidently that “ClimateGate” is overblown–and which is why I’ve never been impressed by systematic attacks on the “hockey stick.” Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it’s still human caused.
My sense is that the climate skeptic commenters we’re seeing aren’t actually familiar with the vast body of climate science work out there, and don’t realize how most individual studies are little more than a drop in the evidentiary bucket. It is because of the consilience of evidence from multiple studies and fields that we accept that climate change is human caused, and it is because of the vast diversity and number of scientists, and scientific bodies, who find that evidence compelling that we talk of a consensus.
I don’t see how anything about “ClimateGate” changes this big picture significantly–and again, that’s even if we assume the worst about what the emails reveal.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Chris,
You are absolutely right and it will make absolutely no difference. The debate will go on and the deniers will deny. It is so difficult to deny one’s religion.
I find it sadly ironic that this was the prelude to a new report released just in front of the Copenhagen meeting, a report that says most of those studies have been wrong, but that they erred on the side of caution, of not wanting to scare the s___ out of the public or of being accused of being alarmist.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
This article says much about nothing. Can you please read, edit, and repost with a point or some type of conclusion with some facts. It will make the blog more interesting.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused.” Global warming may be real but there is no evidence by anyone that it is human caused. A lie often repeated does not maker it true.
David Hamilton MSc. DIC, Dip Tech, MIMM
November 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Religion? It is very clear your “faith” lies in preposterous theories like anthropogenic global warming. You might like scientology.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“It is because of the consilience of evidence from multiple studies and fields that we accept that climate change is human caused, and it is because of the vast diversity and number of scientists, and scientific bodies, who find that evidence compelling that we talk of a consensus.”
Excellent point. Just keep beating that drum. When the opposition trots out one scientist, answer with 10 scientists. When they point to one or two charts, respond with 20. At some point, the public will have to understand the point that “quantity” itself constitutes “quality” on this issue. And that is the key–public awareness. Right now, the public momentum is with the climate change deniers. The climate change believers will have to thoroughly engage with the public if they want policy to actually shift.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I think part of the issue is the convulution of the issue. You have the issue of global-warming believers vs. global warming critics vs. global warming deniers. I think most of the people fall somewhere in the “global warming critics” category. The critics will agree that there is obvious evidence that the planet is warming (sea-ice melting, ocean temperature rising, etc.). However, the global warming critics need to see more evidence that man-made activity is a driving force.
I think a major stumbling block is the predictive analysis of global warming. Critics state that all that scientists seem to have is data. There are no results from long-term expirements in proving causality. Thus, many critics are simply in a “wait and see” holding pattern.
There also seems to be some criticsm that comes from the political side, with regard to cap-n-trade legislation, and purchasing carbon credits. There is concern as to whether these measures will not only have a noticeable impact on global-warming, but whether there’s sufficient science to prove that these ‘specific measures’ will have an effect that justifies the expense?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Well put.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Hey you can protect your politics any way you wish but give this a read..
First, prominent climate scientists, including a lead author of IPCC report sections, were willing to discuss withholding or deleting information to frustrate legitimate requests made under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK. They apparently chose who could not receive information based on the requester’s identity, which may have been unlawful. They threatened to delete data–data which in fact has since disappeared. They advised each other to delete emails.
Second, these same scientists worked closely together to control channels of communication regarding climate science and global warming. They banded together to minimise or eliminate skeptical discussion. While telling the world that only peer-reviewed science should be considered legitimate, they fiercely fought to prevent skeptic writings from being peer-reviewed at all. They wrote openly about replacing an uncooperative journal editor (who was later replaced), and boycotting journals that published skeptical papers. They organised peer review so that they reviewed each others’ papers.
Third, they were willing to change data so that their presentations of the state of climate looked worse. At the end of the day, this is most damning–most of the rest, even apparently illegal FOI actions, is just politics and a playground media strategy. But while world governments were imposing taxes, changing energy policies, preparing energy-based conflict policies, planning to deal with warming-based immigration, these people were content to display figures that were wrongly exaggerated to show the warming they had previously predicted but could not find in actual measurements.
What is there not to understand about this??? back to you..
November 24th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
What this proves is the lengths to which noted professionals, scientists in the highest levels of government and academia, will go to for political ends. Not even their beloved profession or the ethics that govern their discipline are enough to prevent their political agendas from perverting science. That political conspiracy needs little more than shared political opinion and professional courtesy to maintain a level of legitimacy acceptable to a naive and abetting academe, politicians, and media.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“[It has not been proven that t]he scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.”
That doesn’t matter. The CRU gathered all of the primary data used by the IPCC in developing this so-called “theory”. It is because of the data CRU reported that there is any “consensus” on climate change at all. Climate scientists all across the planet have depended on that data.
If that data was cooked, as it appears to have been, then the whole theory is cooked. Pardon the pun.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
And we should believe you because??
November 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Well said Chris. Personally I am at least somewhat ready to agree that there was a smidgeon of dishonesty and hand waving among the Anglia scientists and that they definitely shouldn’t have used words like “hide”. But for crying out loud, this was private email correspondence. In how many of our private emails are we pedagogically accurate?
However this does nothing to mar the science of climate change. One of the constant problems with the deniers is that they are focusing too much on warming. Climate change has several other components and metrics other than temperature and these metrics have convincingly demonstrated alarming changes and trends. A few emails between scientists, no matter how prominent, cannot debunk this vast body of data even if, as you indicated, we assume the worst case scenario in which the scientists have been dishonest.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.”
In my experience, they are. And the reason comes down to funding. Dissenting scientists simply are not funded. Federal agencies ensure state and local governments adopt the party line through funding coercion. It is the parallel track to the “if that publication continues to print opposing viewpoints, we will have it taken of the list of peer-review literature” tact. Opposing viewpoints are squeezed out of the discussion, marginalized. And – all too often – this is not done by a critical analysis of the evidence but – more – a sophomoric, cliquish stratagem emplyed by pre-teen girls on schoolyards everywhere: “deniers” are the fat, ugly chicks with glasses that REALLY don’t DESERVE to be at the prom, anyway.
I think government sponsored “science” does not function as a search for understanding. It serves as an exercise to provide support for previously postulated political agendas. Yes, it’s been going on forever, I guess. Getting the “press” to go along; however, is a relatively recent (and deplorable) development.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
CW; there is another kind of global warming critic who needs to be heard carefully, the one who even agrees that humans are responsible for climate change but who disagrees about the level, scope and details of the impact that climate change will have for the future. Prediction is always a risky business, and it’s important to address the concerns of these critics carefully. Several of them (like Freeman Dyson) don’t have a political axe to grind and it’s highly misguided to lump them together with out and out deniers like Joe Romm does.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The earth is flat, the sun cirlces the earth, plate tectonics is a ridiculous theory and on and on. The scientific consensus is only as valid as the next data set. There are too many data sets being supressed by the global warming community for the matter to be settled. Real science never considers anything settled. The increasing expansion of the universe was discovered attempting to refine the Hubble constant, which it appears, is variable.
Modeling is a tool, not science. Anthropormorphic causes of climate change are still a hypothisis. Why have past CO2 levels up to 6 times today’s levels accompanied periods of glaciation? Is this an inconvenient question?
November 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It appears from today’s headlines that the emails (1) are real, and (2) may not have been hacked, but released by a whistle blower.
The most important thing we have is our honor and our credibility. These individuals have lost theirs and have irreparably harmed the climate debate.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
What finalized my transition into becoming a skeptic was the realization that every pro-AGW argument rested on computer models, and if one researches the reliability of those models, even before we got deep into this cooling phase, one realized that the models were wildly inaccurate – to the point that they cannot and have never have been able to back-cast accurately. In order to prove AGW beyond reasonable doubt, the models have to work. They don’t and they never have – which is why CRU needed to hide information, manipulate data, squeeze skeptics out of the peer review process (which they control), “lose” files rather than submit to FOI requests, and other examples of Enron-style intellectual ability. And this is all the while screaming “CONSENSUS” and telling us the time for debate is over.
I challenge any believer (as I have for years) to show me a computer model of AGW that can even back-cast accurately, let alone forecast accurately. This is the fundamental nature of the fraud.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“The most important thing we have is our honor and our credibility. These individuals have lost theirs and have irreparably harmed the climate debate.”
True. Those who defend a consensus on AGW along with these “scientist’s” fraud are equally suspect.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
John:
You keep running into the room and yelling “THERE’S A FIRE!!!!!!” but fail to tell us where or show us the flames. In the earlier thread on this topic I asked (nay, challenged!) you to provide evidence of the following:
1.) Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any – any – single submitted article was rejected due to a subversion of the peer-review process….even the article in question from that email (remember: that email is talking about a future event).
2.) Prove that this “subversion of the editorial process” has occurred multiple times at multiple journals (this would assumingly require #1 to be proven first).
3.) Prove that this reaches beyond the several scientists in question here (after all, there are far many more peer reviewers out there in climate science besides these guys, and they are not in charge of any peer-review process).
You, in fact, never provided evidence for any of those three points, yet continue to make wild, angry claims about conspiracy here. So I’ll say this again: if you know with such certainty that the conspiracy you are raving about actually happened beyond the broad assumptions you are making, give us the other evidence. You seem so self-assured about the validity of your statements that you must have more evidence to back them up.
Or you are simply a quack who is jumping to conclusions and making broad, hasty generalizations without any other corroborating evidence.
How you respond will decide which of those is true.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Ha! Global Warming is finally exposed as being a giant HOAX. Don’t believe the lies people. Global warming is not real. This author’s job is in serious jeopardy now. He will stop at nothing to advance his agenda and keep he and his hysterical global warming friends safe. Don’t fall for the trap. It’s all a bunch of lies man.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
A long time ago science separated itself from religious belief.
It has been my personal experience that those who have strong religioius beliefs can delude themselves into thinking that the end justifies the means, and that god acts in mysterious ways….
The concept of saving the world from AGW has become the equivalent of religious dogma…don’t listen to the heathens, cut them out of our social circles, don’t give them anything which may disprove the existence of our god because they are deniers of the faith. According to the likes of the new religious leaders like Pope Gore, and Cardinal David Suzuki, disbelievers should be imprisoned or subjected to inquisitions ala Nuremberg trials.
What the hell has happened to the scientific concept of seeking the truth, whatever truth may turn out to be?
There is no defence for the actions of Jones, et al.. If it were “deniers” who were found to be altering/suppressing data and manipulating peer review process, am I to believe anyone would find THAT defensible?
This requires a proper investigation, and, a full disclosure of facts. I will optimistically wait for justice to be served, for, without it, the credibility of climate change science itself is now imperiled by AGW religious belief.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years. Nothing humans do will change that fact. The problem is that most climate change believers appear to be starting from the misguided notion that the climate is a static system and should not change. It really is the height of man’s arrogance to assume (remember what happens when you assume something – Hint ass/u/me) that we are the sole and driving force behind climate change.
This developing scandal may or may not be the tip of the iceberg. However, it does expose the unfortunate truth that much of the natural science community, like it or not, is fad driven, with funding and publishing only going to the accepted fad, until the ponderance of the evidence begins to build up and the peer-review journals have no choice but to start to accept the dissenting points of view, or loose all real credibility.
The consequence if this scandal may be a black eye to the reputation of all scientists for the next decade or so to come.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
How ironic, Mr Mooney, that you would write a book named “Unscientific America” and yet you defend these criminal “scientists” at the CRU who are engaged in CLEAR fraud. Cooking the data, designing their computer models to distort the data, withholding their computer models and data from the public and ignoring FOIA requests and actively conspiring to discredit and defame “climate denier” scientists.
You and your ilk make me sick. Admit it for God’s sake. This is a clear example of fraud. It is a disgrace. I know that you and your fellow Climate Zealots have your reputations invested in this scam but continuing down this path is not going to save your reputations.
The fraud is over. Let’s end it now and move on to real and substantial environmental issues. Like the trash and polluting of the ocean or GMO food? Huh? Can we? Please?!!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
-I challenge any believer (as I have for years) to show me a computer model of AGW that can even back-cast accurately, let alone forecast accurately. This is the fundamental nature of the fraud.
Paul, well said. I do computer modeling on relatively “simple” system and even there I know how rampant predictive failures can be because of uncertain factors and insufficient data. I cannot believe comnputer models could ever predict something as complex as the climate; notice that the financial market was at least as complex and we all know what happened to computer models there. We still have a long way to go before we understand such complex systems. You are also right about the back-casting problem; for instance no computer model was able to convincingly predict the last ten years of temperature stagnation. As in other fields, the warmers have shot themselves in the foot by overrelying on computer models (alhtough I wouldn’t use the word “fraud”)
November 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Is it possible that any other such data is being withheld from legitimate public scrutiny?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
IF ANTHROPOGENIC IS THE CAUSE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE WHY CHEAT?
To be clear on who I am:
A) I am an expert
B) I am very well versed
C) I’ve read the raw e-mails and files
The significance of climategate is that it exposes that a group of powerful elites at the CRU and IPCC worked to:
a) manipulate data
b) exclude discenting opinion
c) colluded to delete and erase data
d) destroy other journal’s
e) manipulate the composition of the editorial boards of other institutions
f) destruction of data
g) failure of compliance with Freedom of Information Act Requests
The obvious question is WHY? Why was this done?
Please don’t label me a denier with the holocaust insinuations attached to it. I’m not a “denier,” I’m a scientist and I am shocked that this is the way the CRU and the IPCC operates.
These people were colluding to keep discenting papers and points of view out of the IPCC reports.
If Climate Change is a foregone conclusion, Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? Why the ostracising of dissenting opinions?
This is DISCOVER MAGAGINE – You’re supposed to advocate scientific viewpoints in your Blogs etc. It’s a dark day when its bloggers become puppets.
For the love of science Chris — ASK WHY?!!
November 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
20. Eric Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
According to the likes of the new religious leaders like Pope Gore, and Cardinal David Suzuki, disbelievers should be imprisoned or subjected to inquisitions ala Nuremberg trials.
____________
Do you have proof of this? Kindly point to one public statement by either of these individuals saying that science deniers should be imprisoned.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
As in other fields, the warmers have shot themselves in the foot by overrelying on computer models (alhtough I wouldn’t use the word “fraud”)
Have they, Sorbet? All one needs to do is point to the plethora of observed, non model-based data that support AGW: a globally-coherent signature of species range shifts/changes in phenology, observed temperature data, sea/glacial ice extent, etc. etc. etc.
And this is not to mention that predictions based off of AGW computer models have come true, such as the prediction made over 20 years ago that the Northwest Passage might open due to AGW (it has), that we would we see widesprea global glacier melt (we are), and that we would begin to see saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers due to AGW-induced sea level rise (which we are).
There’s a hell of a lot more to climate science than computer models. Even a lot of the ‘warmers,’ to use your term, can’t see that.
And hardly any skeptics can.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
As in other fields, the warmers have shot themselves in the foot by overrelying on computer models
You’ve got to be kidding. Warmers?
One thing that’s strange is that the people chanting “uncertainty”, always assume it applies favorably in our direction. If anything, uncertainty should lead us to be *more* careful. Not less.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
20. Eric Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
There is no defence for the actions of Jones, et al.. If it were “deniers” who were found to be altering/suppressing data and manipulating peer review process, am I to believe anyone would find THAT defensible?
________
Indeed it would. However, since neither of these happened in this case, it’s not relevant to this discussion.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Please read how the Climatic Research Unit allgedly conned the world before you blindly trust them:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
Q.) If CO2 causes global warming then why hasn’t the world warmed in the last 10 years?
A.) It doesn’t It was the Sun all along, Svensmark was right :
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf
You’ll wake up when it starts to get cold.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
For Toasterhead:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
November 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Jail Politicians Who Ignore Climate Science: Suzuki
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
November 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
There’s a big difference between “ignoring” climate science and questioning it, Blue Light. One cannot question the science while ignoring it altogether.
Try again.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
33. Blue Light Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Jail Politicians Who Ignore Climate Science: Suzuki
__________
So you admit, then, that you’re a liar.
Thank you for your honesty.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Fitzr the Silly Little Denialist just said:
It (CO2) doesn’t (drive global warming). It was the Sun all along
…and thus Fitzr the Silly Little Denialist revealed he has never read a single scientific article on AGW, where the authors freely account for the effects of solar cycles.
Try again, little one….but go read some actual science first.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
What are you talking about, Toasterhead? You asked, “Kindly point to one public statement by either of these individuals saying that science deniers should be imprisoned.”
I just copied a headline and pasted a link.
Are you calling me a liar?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
GiveMeABreak the Silly Little Denialist just said:
withholding their computer models and data from the public
…and thus GiveMeABreak the Silly Little Denialist revealed that he has never read a single scientific article on AGW, where the authors are required to post methods in detail (including details and explanations of all model parameters and specificiation) and are often required to post entire raw datasets along with their papers for the sake of transparency.
Try again, little one….but go read some actual science first.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
37. Blue Light Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Are you calling me a liar?
__________
Yup. Suzuki was speaking figuratively, not literally, and you know it. Thus, you are a liar.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Just for you, BlueLight the Silly Little Denailist:
There’s a big difference between “ignoring” climate science and questioning it, Blue Light. One cannot question the science while ignoring it altogether.
Try again.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Justanonymous the Silly Little Denialist just said:
This is DISCOVER MAGAGINE – You’re supposed to advocate scientific viewpoints in your Blogs etc.
…and thus Justanonymous the Silly Little Denialist admitted he was in reality not an expert on science, since Mooney just gave a very scientific view of what this whole “scandal” means to climate science.
Try again, little one….but go learn what science is first.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I understand that some of the conspirators have admitted to manipulating the data and they may not be the only ones, it will be more that likely they will turn states evidence and will soon start naming names.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
These guys ARE USING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR THEIR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH. They should be immediately investigated by the FBI and charged criminally accordingly to ANY correlation between what these emails show and what science they are forging. This is not just an issue national concern but global concern- impacting huge sums of money- and many people’s lives.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
JohnHays the Silly Little Denialist said:
The problem is that most climate change believers appear to be starting from the misguided notion that the climate is a static system and should not change. It really is the height of man’s arrogance to assume that we are the sole and driving force behind climate change.
…and thus JohnHays the Silly Little Denialist revealed he knows nothing about climate science, because even the IPCC reports do not say that we are the “sole force” behind climate change. And no climate scientist assumes that the climate is a “static system.”
Try again, little one…but go read some science first.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
check out this video for all the true evidence…
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en&emb=0&aq=2&oq=global+warm#q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en&emb=0&aq=2&oq=global+warm&qvid=global+warming+swindle&vid=-5576670191369613647
November 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I am so often amused by how quickly the name calling starts, on both sides.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Look! The current zenith of scientific reason: namecalling. Thank you Bilbo. You too, Toaster.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
46. Blue Light Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Look! The current zenith of scientific reason: namecalling. Thank you Bilbo. You too, Toaster.
___________
Don’t like it? You’re more than welcome to leave.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
These guys ARE USING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR THEIR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH.
There has to be an easier way to make money than spend all those years trying to get a Phd, then busting your hump so you can write a grant for a modest amount… then spending time in an icebox doing proxy studies.
Also, why would experts be saying AGW is conclusive if they just wanted to graft some grant money. Why not just say “Still uncertain. So fork over more grant money so I can party hearty in subzero climates.”
November 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Paul the Silly Little Denialist said:
What finalized my transition into becoming a skeptic was the realization that every pro-AGW argument rested on computer models
…and thus Paul the Silly Little Denialist revealed he knows nothing about climate science, because every “pro-AGW” argument does NOT hinge on computer models.
Try again, little one…but go educate yourself before you form opinions.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
So here’s my question to the deniers present – what studies, published in what journals, are now in doubt from these emails? And what percentage of the scientific publications produced to date on the climate crisis do those supposedly compromised studies represent?
See, there are thousands of climate papers in the last 30 years, all pointing to warming that is based in natural cycles by accelerated by human industrial actions. Many of those papers are based on observation data – i.e. temperature readings taken all over the globe for lon gperiods of time. They are not based on computer models. None of that science is even remotely called in to question here, and neither, FWIW are the models.
And Sorbet – the models of the financial system you alluded to upthread did, in fact, point nicely to the collapse that occured. Unfortunately, they were dismissed just as the climate models are now being dismissed.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Returning to Wes Rolley’s post at #1 above:
The just released Copenhagen Diagnosis Climate Science Report:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
It is more than three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related to human-induced climate change.
The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.
And again, the conclusion from the introduction to the media release as also quoted by Wes Rolley:
“Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world’s top climate scientists. ”
As Chris puts it above, ” It is because of the consilience of evidence from multiple studies and fields ”
The fact that there is still much more to know does not preclude us from taking action based on the evidence that we do have now.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
David Hamilton the Silly Little Denialist said:
Global warming may be real but there is no evidence by anyone that it is human caused
…and thus David Hamilton the Silly Little Denialist revealed that he has never read an IPCC report. Or read a scientific article on climate change. Or thought for himself.
…and thus David Hamilton the Silly Little Denialist also proved that a Master’s Degree does not an independent thinker make.
Try again, little one…but say something meaningful first.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I am so often amused by how quickly the name calling starts, on both sides.
Yep, that’s how they like it. “Demand debate!!” As ex tobacco sleeze master Steve Milloy likes to say.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
It is no longer a matter of who is right anymore or if you believe in AGW or not, the damage to the Science has been done by these conspirators, the whole barrel now needs to be cleaned out to ensure there are no more rotten apples, the data then needs to be re-correlated by new scientists and all views assessed, anybody who shouts denier at others from either side must go.
The credibility of science must be restored.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
See, there are thousands of climate papers in the last 30 years, all pointing to warming that is based in natural cycles by accelerated by human industrial actions. Many of those papers are based on observation data – i.e. temperature readings taken all over the globe for lon gperiods of time. They are not based on computer models. None of that science is even remotely called in to question here, and neither, FWIW are the models.
This will utterly blow the Silly Little Denailists’ minds. They think climate change hinges on a couple of papers published in the nineties.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
49. bilbo Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
…and thus Paul the Silly Little Denialist revealed he knows nothing about climate science, because every “pro-AGW” argument does NOT hinge on computer models.
__________
Facts don’t matter to science deniers. They won’t be satisfied until climatologists construct a control pre-Industrial planet Earth in heliocentric orbit, send it back in time to 1709, and run a 300-year experiment to see how the alternate climate responds to a lack of human activity.
And even then they’ll find some other aspect to criticize. Science deniers are never satisfied. That’s why they should all be thrown in jail.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Don’t like it? You’re more than welcome to leave.”
And Toaster illustrates the companion tact to name calling: squelch dissenting voices. Hey! The IPCC was doing that, too! Quite the little acolyte, aren’t you, Toaster?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Bilbo, If you’re a scientist I hope you’re the youngest scientist in history.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
57. Blue Light Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
And Toaster illustrates the companion tact to name calling: squelch dissenting voices. Hey! The IPCC was doing that, too! Quite the little acolyte, aren’t you, Toaster?
__________
What part of “you’re more than welcome to leave” weren’t you clear on, chuckles?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Nah. I’ll stay and fight. I’m enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
A few questions
1. If the Hockey stick and related studies are not the foundation for global warming, what is? I am serious about this question as I thought this was key to AGW.
2. Are you curious if the ethical issues the emails indicate are limited to this one research center or have they been occuring in other centers?
3. If it is limited to this one center and all the other research is sound, why was it necessary? Why would there have been a need to block FOI requests and hide results if this is what actually happened.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The reality is that the “great body” of science supporting AGW was primarily created by the culprits involved in ClimateGate and the true believers have been pointing at it for over a decade to support their theology. This may well be the most shameful episode in the history of science.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Whenever influential scientists are proven to ignore the principals of science by manipulating their data/results and practicing McCarthy-like politics, ALL scientists suffer. Trying to brush the Motley CRU e-mails under the rug only further damages the credibility of Discover.
Making light of fraudulent academics only demonstrates that the pursuit of truth is NOT the writer’s focus. A pursuit of a personal agenda is the focus.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
As I see it, the biggest problem the anthropogenics have is basic lack of credibility; at least with people still able to think for themselves. No one older than 40 has forgotten the hysteria that spawned “The Coming Ice Age” article that graced the cover of Time Magazine. And no one who’s been paying attention can overlook the myriad predictions that HAVE NOT come true. That list is to long to bother with because it is boring; as is anything so consistently marked by failure. The climate-crisis mongers have been all over the map, from strident warnings of exploding population in the 70s, to disastrous global droughts in the 90s, to swarms of catastrophic hurricanes just last year. We’re regularly treated with movies whose monotonous themes always feature vicious, evil Man who is destroying Mother Gaia.
And to those who think current public sentiment is on the side of the deniers, I say give me a break! We’ve been inundated (there’s a word you should love) not only by with sensational headlines by the major media that most now swallow the tripe without even a gurgle of protest.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Fitzr the Silly Little Denialist said:
Bilbo, If you’re a scientist I hope you’re the youngest scientist in history.
…and thus Fitzr the Silly Little Denialist revealed that one gets branded a “scientist” for agreeing with the idea of AGW.
Try again, little one….but use some common sense, first.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Careful bilbo, it looks like you’ve gone off the deep end there, buddy.
Anyway, this whole thread has devolved into pathetic name calling. The leaked emails clearly document how these Climate Fraudsters (I’d rather be a Climate Denier than a Climate Fraudster) at the CRU conspired to delete information that was under FOIA request and went to great lengths to keep their data and computer models out of the public eye. Go read the leaked emails and computer code for yourself or just go back to the Church of Gore you pathetic believers.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
If we are causing global warming, why does the temp. on Mars mirror the temp. on Earth
November 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
As a former subscriber to Discover, I am not surprised that a staffer there refuses to countenance that AGW may be a hoax. I got this magazine a few years ago for my kids to read. As I read the content, I discovered that Discover was completely in the tank for AGW. Being a scientist myself (BS Physics) I had looked at the data and found it all to be curve fitting and computer models. In other words, anecdotal. What are the odds that a highly complex multi-variate system like the atmosphere is controlled by a trace gas, and further only the human-generated percentage of the trace gas? And that the trace gas happens to be critical for all life on the planet, not a poison? Not likely. And certainly not something I would believe without actual experimental data. Agree to massive new taxes to support this idea? BWHAHAHAHA
November 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Careful bilbo, it looks like you’ve gone off the deep end there, buddy
Not off the deep end, GiveMeABreak the Silly Little Denialist – just illustrating how oh so very simple it is to show that each and every one of the Silly Little Denialists here exhibit the same childish misconceptions of climate scientists and the evidence for AGW.
It’s like you’re all the same person posting under different names.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I’ve noticed that many liberals are distinguished by the ease with which they resort to ad-hominem attacks when opposed by logical argument.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The basic premise of this blog confuses me. If the body of evidence had been tested elsewhere and was sound, and this was only a proxy of what other scientests had done, it should not have been necessary to block FOI requests or manipulate data.
If East Anglia was not able to replicate the results of the already tested body of evidence, why not?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
GiveMeABreak said:
“Anyway, this whole thread has devolved into pathetic name calling.”
And at the end of the same message:
“…or just go back to the Church of Gore you pathetic believers.”
Umm…yeah. Hypocrisy. Thought that was a bit entertaining.
Anyway, I am highly interested in hearing what Chris Mooney has to say to all the (legitimate/ data-backed) criticisms that have been put forward here. I want an honest debate on this important issue. May the best data win.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
These guys ARE USING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR THEIR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH. They should be immediately investigated by the FBI
Erm, which country did this occur in again? Here’s a hint: the USA is not the only country in the world…
November 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
If we are causing global warming, why does the temperature on Mars mirror the temperature on Earth
November 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
A few questions
1. If the Hockey stick and related studies are not the foundation for global warming, what is? I am serious about this question as I thought this was key to AGW.
Elroy, consider these:
1.) A globally-coherent shift in species ranges and phenologies, from plants to insects to mammals to birds, all corresponding to climate shifts.
2.) Predictions made from AGW models going on a decade ago (opening of the NW Passage, saltwater intrusion, glacier melt) which have all come true and have occurred at a vastly faster rate than would be expected under non-anthropogenic warming.
3.) An observed increased rate of warming in polar regions versus temperate regions (predicted by AGW models)
4.) Observed increases in ocean acidity due to atmopsheric CO2 inputs, in conjunction with observed increases in ocean temperatures.
5.) Observed data from tree rings, ice cores, etc. etc. etc. that back up and directly match the predictions of climate models.
This is what Mooney is talking about when he mentions the “body of evidence” for AGW. This stuff isn’t mentioned on climate denialist sites, and they rather pretend that AGW hignes on a couple of papers from the nineties.
In reality, it does not.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
72. Elroy Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The basic premise of this blog confuses me. If the body of evidence had been tested elsewhere and was sound, and this was only a proxy of what other scientests had done, it should not have been necessary to block FOI requests or manipulate data.
If East Anglia was not able to replicate the results of the already tested body of evidence, why not?
Elroy,
The issue for most scientists is this – the academics compete for limited research dollars, and so, frankly, they are too often unwilling to release their data for fear that someone else, with more $$, more time, or both, will do the analysis and publish the paper before the original researcher. Inotherwords, many academic scientists regard data as their intellectual property. Courts generally back them up, unless their grant has specific release requriements.
They also weren’t talking about being able to replicate others work – they were talking about HOW TO ADD their data to other’s previous work. BIG, HUGE difference.
That said, most climate data is freely availabel on the web through NOAA, NASA, the NSF, and countless universities. of course, with thousands of variables and millions of data points, you need a really big computer to do anything with it.
And I notice none of our skeptics have answered my basic question @51.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The CRU data was in fact, a critical component of the IPCC’s assessment. If the CRU data were shown to be manipulated with forthought then it would, indeed, impugn the veracity if the IPCC’s conclusions.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
If the Hockey stick and related studies are not the foundation for global warming, what is? I am serious about this question as I thought this was key to AGW.
If you just listened to the movement conservative rumor mill, it’s not surprising you’d think that.
There is a list of studies here:
http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline
I’m sure the latest IPCC report is more up to date, but that’s pretty technical.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“The Coming Ice Age” article that graced the cover of Time Magazine.
That’s an old one:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php
November 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/catch_up_on_the_ipcc_agw_fraud/
November 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Secularist10:
“Excellent point. Just keep beating that drum. When the opposition trots out one scientist, answer with 10 scientists. When they point to one or two charts, respond with 20. At some point, the public will have to understand the point that “quantity” itself constitutes “quality” on this issue. ”
I thought at first you were being sarcastic. I guess not. So to rebut…on THIS issue quantity equals quality? Ummm no. Science doesn’t work like that. Not once, ever. Science is a search for the truth. Even if everyone else thinks the earth is flat and you have this crazy idea that it is round, the truth is the truth. And eventually, it will come out.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Hey Chris, have you ever heard the expression “for every rat you see, there are fifty you don’t”? You seem to be under the impression that these are the only people practicing shady tatics in the name of global warming. The rest of us, however, are pretty sure that a whole bunch of other “scientists” just spent the whole day deleting emails.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Philip H
In your question 51 you ask of doubts about AGW in journals.
One aspect of the e-mails was the way the CRU team were bullying journals that published such doubts.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused.”
You can’t make “that old chestnut” true just by repeating it. There are NO scientific studies showing that global warming is human caused or even that prove that carbon dioxide is the cause. Studies claiming to prove these points discount significant factors, like the sun, water vapor in the atmosphere, and the carbon absorbing capabilities of the ocean.
Consider these facts:
-CO2 makes up only .03% of the atmosphere. Does it impact earth’s climate more than the other 99.97% of the atmosphere?
- The earth is 6000 mile in diameter, giving it a surface are of ~197 million square miles. How many temperature monitoring stations are used to determine the “global temperature”? How many were in use in 1950? 1900? 1850? 1800? What about 1000 AD? So with only a couple of hundred years of actual temperature readings, the scientists are creating hypotheses on a system (the earth) that has been around for 4.3 billion years?
-70% of earth’s surface is covered with water. Of the remaining 30%, less than half of that is populated. So the activities of 6 foot tall creatures, occupying 15% of the surface of a sphere that is 6,000 miles in diameter are impacting not the local weather, but the entire climate?
A little common sense and deductive reasoning are in order.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The Global Warming Hoax is dead. It was never ‘prooven’ to have existed in the first place and the only people who were saying it was, were the same people who were stupid enough to believe that Al Gore’s plan to control the earth’s weather was even possible. The best evidence that Global Warming exists was produced by the same FRAUDSTERS who just got caught cooking the data. You guys need to find a new cause. There IS NO TROUBLE with the weather. You should be happy about that.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Denialists don’t want to see the truth because they were sold on the idea that science is supposed to make our lives better. The promise of the enlightenment and industrial revolution was that science would make life easier. After a couple hundered years, it has. Unfortunately, scientists are now telling us we have to make sacrifices. Our lives have to get harder (though not as hard as before the industrial revolution). We have to take some steps back in our progress. Have you ever had to give something back you have become attached to? It is not something we can do easily. If scientists are going to win the debate they have to see the problem from this side. Sacrifice does nto come without resisitance. And denialists, instead of denying facts and alleging hoaxes, why dont you challenge scientists to find solutions to the problem that continue to progress technology?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@bilbo
You are rude and impolite. When you cannot attack the observations and the merit of an argument, you fall back to attacking the presenter in a vain attempt at marginalizing him/her.
I encourage you to attack the merit of the arguments vs personally attempting to discredit me.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The Earth tends to warm up after Ice Ages. Since we’ve left the last one, it’s likely the Earth will do what it’s done after previous Ice Ages…warm up, lose glaciers, and get an expansion of tropical environs.
Look up temperatures and trends between different periods in Earth’s history, you’ll see there’s a trend back and forth between ice ages and tropical ages, with more temperate ages in between. Unless science can state how long those changes took, our current climate change, imo, is what’s being exaggerated as our fault.
It certainly doesn’t help that, as many of my professors have admitted, up to 1/3, maybe more, of all research is fraudulent. It also doesn’t help that MOST studies on this subject are funded by the government. Gee, now what does the government have to profit by with climate chnage being our fault? More control, more power, more money. And the scientists funded by them? The same. Why is it neutral studies show we humans do not cause this climate change? Why is it top scientists from the EPA and NASA have been silenced on this matter when their research showed climate change for what it really is?
And, most importantly, why is it we don’t accept our current trend of cooling for what it is GW scientists get flustered and spout garbage about it’s because of El Nina, so it doesn’t count. Yet, then why do they discount the very fact that the warming current, El Nino was at its peak in 1998, the same year we had record highs for summer temps? You can’t have it both ways.
I remain very dubious about man-caused mass climate change.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Bilbo:
(a) explain exactly what, then, do proponents of AGW base their arguments on, of not computer models? They look at the past temperature trends and accept that there was unprecedented warming which took place in the ’80′s and ’90′s, and hypothesize that this was due to man-made co2 emissions. They investigate this by attempting to re-create historical conditions through the accumulation of proxy data and apply current and future co2 and other anthropogenic changes over time to derive a conclusion. How can a conclusion be reached without a working model?
(b) please also be kind enough to also provide a reference for your assertion that tree ring or other proxy data has matched computer models perfectly. Hell, please list an example – any example – of a climate related computer model that has demonstrated accuracy over time at any level.
Much Obliged
November 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“There is nothing to worry about folks. We just hit an iceberg is all. We are unsinkable; you are on the Titanic after all.”
November 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Pity him, Justanonymous. He’s been used by an establishment pushing a political agenda. He was suckered in thinking he was doing good.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Bilbo, you don’t need computers to predict that glaciers might melt and that desert encroachment will increase. Such qualitative effects can be predicted even without computers. The question is how much each factor will contribute to the overall effect. And sorry, but no computer in the world can predict that. A lot of warmers (and i believe myself to be one too) unfortunately behave like not only the science but also all the details of all the effects of climate change are settled, when they are not. The climate is a highly complex and chaotic system. Initial changes will amplify into effects whose random nature will make them virtually impossible to predict. Physics cannot even solve the three body problem and we are talking about something almost unimaginably complicated compared to this. Even if you predict it it’s very difficult to know if it’s a chance correlation. Since we cannot run future experiments we have to run future simulations, an endeavor fraught with problems. It was for a good reason that Niels Bohr said “Prediction is difficult….and especially about the future”. I am completely in agreement that global warming has happened and that man is responsible for it. But prediction is a completely different ball game and critics who question only the predictive value cannot be silenced.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
@Adam
This has nothing to do with “deniers” and “warmers” as if those simple titles made any sense whatsoever.
This is about 160MB of leaked files that contain some very daming evidence against the Climate Research Unit, one of the principal pillars of the IPCC —- the recommendations coming out from these groups are affecting trillions of dollars worth of spend.
Please focus on the question at hand…..why would these supposed objective and elite climate scientists see fit to:
- cheat
- bully
- ostracise
- discredit
- exclude
- marginalize
- destruction of data
- refusal to provide Freedom of Information Data
and otherwise seek to forcefully remove any objective dissenting opinion to the climate change argument. Why cheat when you’re winning?
Please please don’t come back like others with a 3rd grade personal attack like others in this forum have done. These are serious matters. We need to debate them.
These e-mails are damning — we need to take a look at what is going on. We need a top down review
November 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Our lives have to get harder
Not necessarily. It will definitely get harder for fossil fuel interests, though. They have bottomless pockets, as they did during the old days of Standard Oil, etc., and they’ll spend it to create F.U.D. in any way they can.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@Blue Light
Again Blue Light, this is not about “deniers” or “warmers” or some other simple label.
Your small personal attacks did not work in 3rd grade and they don’t work now. Serious debate please. Attack the merit of the e-mails and files.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Sorry Blue Light – I took your comment out of context. LOL Cheers friend.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if they paid the hackers to break into the email servers.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It’s frustrating when we’re trying to really dig into the meat of these very substantive arguments that affect the whole of humanity and we wind up devolving into 2nd or 3rd grade.
I really wish we could focus on the Blog entry that Chris made.
I can’t believe he’s supporting the CRU scientists — there clearly were problems there. We need a review.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The simple fact is that Mooney is a GIANT HYPOCRITE. He claims to represent science and yet he defends this very clear example of scientific fraud and totally un-scientific criminal behavior at the CRU. The proof is in the pudding, Mooney. Open your eyes and read the damning emails and source code.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hi
I am just a member of the general public ( I am not really I have a degree in Electronics ) but for the purpose of this posting I am, I still see some people have not learnt anything from Climategate and still trying to ram home their views by calling others deniers, as far as I am concerned anybody doing this I will treat as a fraudster and ignore their argument completely, it will be binned, likewise from the other side.
Now what I want to see are good quality balanced reports formulated from true data , presented in a simplified as possible format without loosing the scientific content.
If it looks like your data does not stack up, it will be binned, I do not want to see silly pictures of Polar Bears floating away on icebergs, in an Arctic summer, Polar bears are good swimmers and would have been in no danger and they quite often sit on iceberg like those in the photograph used by Al Gore..
Remember if you attempt to scaremonger or sensationalise without good quality data to back up you claim it will be binned.
When you have all done that, I can make my mind up.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
@Adam: I think you make a good point about the possible motivation of denialists.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
How about who paid the Russian hackers to break into email servers?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
South Park’s Officer Barbrady: “Move along, forget about emails, nothing to see here!“
November 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I’m back from break to make one comment (I know, who gives a rats ass).
I just can’t help myself. Where the hell are all those “new atheist” who hound Chris Mooney whenever they get a chance? Why aren’t they here defending science. Not a single “new atheist” hang out has anything to say on this situation, nor a link to Chris’ blog which has put itself out there to confront the hostile and often “anti-scientific” attacks on the science and scientist. Not a word on Jerry Coyne’s, PZ Myer’s, Russell Blackford’s or Dawkins’ sites on defending science in this matter.
I can hear it now, “what are you talking about”, “this isn’t our problem”, “I commented on a news site” or somehow Chris is wrong. Bull crap, you “new atheist” hounds (and yes, I’ve become rather hostile to the “new atheist” recently, so I doubt I’ll be heckling Chris for saying “New Atheist followers…” etc.) what this site ready to pounce whenever Chris criticizes “new atheist” like children upset their pacifier has been taken away. So, I know you see what’s happening and yet you’ll remain silent in defense of science, reason and scientist because you have become petty and one trick pony’s.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@Jon
I would not be surprised either if it was a paid outside job. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a “whistleblower” on the inside. Few things would surprise me right now.
I think it’s very premature to start pointing fingers on who did this though and using the tired argument that Exxon did it isn’t going to hold water.
I advocate an investigation that’s impartial. I also advocate that we don’t sign onto cap and trade, Kyoto 2, Copenhagen or other treaties until we can figure out what is really going on with the science.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hi Adam, your premise is wrong. Science is not about making our lives better. It is about the search for truth. The search for truth does not care about implications, only data and free inquiry. It is up to us to determine what we are going to do about truth, not the scientists.
Let’s say for the moment that AGW is “true”. I may as a free individual decide that I don’t want the planet to be warmer, so I cut down on my behaviors that would lead to that eventuality. Now let’s say that you, also as a free individual, would like it to be warmer and don’t want to modify your behavior. Under your premise, I would be justified to use force to compel you to act as I want you to act. I utterly reject this. I have no right to impose my will on you in the name of science and vice versa. So if you want to huddle around a candle in a cave, feel free. I won’t and you can’t make me. Save the planet, kill yourself.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
What’s as maddening (or more so!) than the corruption of “science” is the corruption of the press that has gone hand-in-hand. Is the mainstream media simply hoping this will go away if they ignore it long enough?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
A couple comments in emails (over how many years? how many emails?) by a few scientists, does not indict all scientists. That’s the same old Paranoid Style of American Politics, a la Joseph McCarthy.
I think it’s pretty clear someone paid for this stunt and the timing isn’t a coincidence.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
The writer of this article is a liar- and probably totally garbage and worthless human being.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Philip H, the point is that the financial models could not predict when something would happen nor the exact magnitude although they did identify the problems as you mentioned. These were the “Black Swans” enumerated by author and analyst Nassim Taleb (whose book is eminently readable). It’s the same problem with almost every computer model, irrespective of the field. Now this is fair enough, since we almost never have the data nor the knowledge of dependence on initial conditions needed to construct such accurate models. But then let’s not at least pretend that we do and let’s not have the hubris to contend that we can predict the details both temporally and in terms of exact composition.
-If anything, uncertainty should lead us to be *more* careful. Not less.
Yes, but “careful” is very hard to define in this case. Sure, we should generally decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases but apart from that it is very difficult to predict any consequence of concrete measures.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
NO this shows that people who are IN CHARGE of climate science are lieing together. IT PROVES IT. I am not trying to indict ALL scientists and NO ONE is! You guys are bringing up this pathetic red herring to change the focus. I am saying these people need to be investigated and now the UN IPCC needs to be investigated- and the people invloved need to go to jail. And those with federal grants BY LAW should be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted. It is absolutely necessary that this kind of fraud not be tolerated AT ALL. And your side are just a bunch of liars anyways because you dont want to investigate cause you know that GW science is mostly bunk anyways. Your all just liars and out to be ashamed of your evil worthless selves. You are all going to hell anyways.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
and Luke Vogel is right on.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@ Blue Light
I completely agree on the corruption of the Media. I think they follow a layered approach — if they keep it out of the major news outlets it won’t reach as many people.
ie Internet and blogs will carry it to what 15 to 30 million people. but if it gets to NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS then you could reach 90 million. I think it’s about containment.
It’s downright scary to me that something this significant is so successfully kept out of sight.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Chris you show me the “massive” amount of data that proves your point. You all closed the debate years ago with out any TRUE science to back it up. Post in on here or QUIT REPEATING LIES!!!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It’s interesting to note that the stock market is smart enough to completely ignore this wingnut-manufactured tempest in a teapot:
http://tinyurl.com/cleantechstocks
November 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
@Jon
Someone might have paid for it (I do not know), but that’s a tired argument. At this point Climate Change is the BIG BROTHER. It’s just as likely that some tired DBA at the CRU started reading in the middle of the night and was so shocked at what he read, that he decided to exercise freedom of information and realease the files
How many e-mails? Thousands
Do I have them? Yes
Have I read them? 50%
Can I prove they’re real? I have the checksums on the zip files but I haven’t called Jones to verify (although he’s acknowledge he wrote many of the prominet ones on the web and the CRU has acknowledged the loss)
And no, these e-mails do not not indict ALL scientists but from what I’ve read it 100% does indict the ones writing these e-mails and THESE scientists are the Elites feeding the IPCC and, in effect, directing climate change policy.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
@Jon
Another attempt by you to shift focus. Keep trying.
It would be more productive if you focused on the meat of the e-mails. Can you comment on those?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I don’t know where to begin about the press, Justanonymous. Not one of our local papers has even MENTIONED the story. I do know this, though: when I read Chris Mooney’s blog post on this issue (the one that started this discussion), I decided I will not be renewing my subscription to Discover Magazine.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
And the real denilists are those who ignore this absolute PROOF of corruption at the leading “scientific” levels. Anyone proven to have manipulated data should get no less than 10 years in prison. Anything less is an abomination. I want a grand investigation of all their work- in relation to all that is said in those emails- and I want a federal investigation from the FBI on anyone or institution that is implicated in this by the evidence- and if they broke laws they should be tried under violation of federal law. And nothing less. This goes way beyond whatever impact man might have on climate- it is about CORRUPTION at a high level regarding and influencing one of the world’s GREATEST most controversial issues. There can be absolutely no leniency allowed on this climategate at all.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Even warming deniers should admit that the climate is changing,
just as it always does, and parts of the world are in for some weird weather
November 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
the Elites feeding the IPCC and, in effect, directing climate change policy.
Elites, eh? Why are scientists elites, and other interests are not? I’m genuinely curious why you think that.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Anyone see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? This is exactly what’s been going on with these climate change studies. “Nonbelievers” are ostracized, denied funding, fired, threatened,etc, etc.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Blue Light all the liars and Climategate followers and sympathizers are trying to bury this. This is a major embarrassment for them. They are exposed for all to see. Everyone needs to demand investigations and prosecution of the indivisible involved.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Tell me more about these elites. How did you come to the conclusion of how bad they were?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
He’s saying that these scientists are the “in charge” ones. They control what is politically correct and what is allowed and affect government policies.
If you mean elitism…they’re even elitists in that regard because they refuse actual debates. Kinda like Al Gore refuses to debate/answer questions on the inaccuracies of his documentary. Kinda like most of their “debate” is that there should be no debate.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Philip H
The data they have admitted to manipulating is used in the IPCC reports, in fact it forms most of the arguments that AGW is based upon, it is unfortunate for them that it is not just the email’s, but the computer code with comments in, showing they have manipulated the data, this is the real nail in the coffin.
As it is, I no longer believe the arguments from either side, becuase I do not know where the data has come from.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Thanks, jones. I missed a word in my comment, but I trust the message is clear. It has come to really bother me and we all know they check the site every day to see what Chris will say next about “new atheist” and their minions (shout out to PZ for calling his followers, “followers” and minions – there’s truth in that there humor, kid).
November 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The real point is that we “deniers” have been suspecting this all along. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We’ve been proven right. The earth may be warming but you bunch of clowns can’t prove it is caused by man or how long it will last.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
It also turns out that emails to and from John P Holdren are littered throughout these leaked emails. Surprise, surprise. The same guy that authored Ecoscience calling for population reduction. Gee, do you think he has an agenda at all?
These people are not scientists. They are ideologues and climate cultists and they are very dangerous people that need to be investigated immediately.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Rather than just asserting “there is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused” how about actually listing the items that make up the “massive body of science, tested and retested”? What are your references for this massive body of science?
Ratified? What has that got to do with science? Ratified is voting and politics just as is consensus and as such they are not science. They might be part of the “peer review process” which as is seen in the case of Climategate can be manipulated and perverted to further a political agenda and to thus manipulate the “ratification” and “consensus”.
Doesn’t integrity of the scientists involved in science matter?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
They control what is politically correct
So what kind of standards would they have if they weren’t concerned with the politically correct. Would they teach intelligent design to their students? What else would they do if they weren’t elitist scientists?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
76. bilbo Says:
Bilbo, the examples you site may or may not be correlated increased CO2. I don’t think that it is possible to decide that here. Recent news articles indicating we are at peak CO2 levels would seem to contradict the theory of CO2 caused AGW given that we have not had the expected temperature increases in the last 10 years according to some climate models.
What is true is that we have been told the argument is settled and the time for debate is past. These emails cast some doubt on this. The cost in terms of capital and freedom for controlling CO2 emissions will be huge. There will be consequences, especially among the poorer nations of the world if they are discouraged from developing.
To use an example from the financial world, after Enron collapsed legislation was passed requiring new standards in transparency for financial reporting. The impact of global warming research has far greater ramifications than Enron or a hundred Enrons ever could, the standards for transparency need to be even greater.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
So you’re saying standards should be to repress accurate information for the sake of personal beliefs, regardless of those beliefs are not actually supported by evidence? This is the problem here…having people like this deciding what is politically correct and how government policies should be directed. It exploits everyone.
And, yes, intelligent design should be taught as well. Let it. What harm can it do? You get a real peer review system going, you get honest people, and you find if the studies actually find something worthwhile or not. Cause let me tell ya, the PC of Global Warming certainly isn’t finding anything worthwhile other than to be more skeptical of science and government.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@ Jon
Have you seen the penmanship of some of these guys on the IPCC report. Jesus, I swear these guys spend more time practicing their signature with solid gold Montblanc fountain pens than they do actually looking at the science. Seriously, look at their signatures – it’s laughable. That’s what I mean by elites, the guys who sit at the top of the CRU and IPCC, the people who hurl down thunderbolts and destroy the career of some poor south korean guy who demonstrates, great academic acumen, great insight, great analysis but yet gets entirely shut down of a journal because that’s just not what Jones wants. That’s elitism, that’s what I’m talking about.
Please, focus on the e-mails and the argument and lets not dilly daddle about the stock market.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
So you think the scientists have a government agenda? What’s the agenda? What do you think they have to gain?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Eric is right on. THis is the biggest issue of out time. This is the biggest story of our time. We need to stand up against it. And dont pay any atention to all the conspiracy denilists who are trying to sweep this under the rug. They are evil and disgust me. Everyone- globalwarmig alramists or not should want an investigation into al these groups and proper legal prosecution of the individuals involved. This is ilegal conspiracy and the emails prove it. Now it is tie to look into their computers and see what they have minipulated.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
@Eric
great point, I think there’re many people on the forum here who would like us derailed into some topic that doesn’t pertain to the matter at hand.
I think we’re getting some people really rattled. They’ve degenerated to:
- personal attack strategies
- topic shifting strategies
I wonder if Brian Williams would pay attention? Naw….
November 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Jon, you are just a LIAR. If you had any goodness in you at all- regardless of what you think about climate change- you should want a grand investigation and prosecution of the individuals who manipulated data- if it can be proved. Your just a LIAR Jon. An evil Liar.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
If there’s a crime, there has to be a motive. What were the scientists’ motives? What were they out to do?
November 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Are you serious?
What do these scientists have to gain and to they have a government agenda?
1) Government FUNDS their research. This is what scientists live for.
2) Government, if we actually cause global warming/cooling/climate change(whatever it is since it changes by the decade), gains more control in our private lives, more power, more money.
3) In turn, these scientists gain money.
4) These scientists gain fame and prestige.
5) These scientists go in the history books and have a legacy.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You say that
There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused.
But I have never, ever, seen ANY debate on this. In fact all I have seen is the arrogance and denial of those who have proposed this theory – to the point where they refuse debate at all.
So I ask you again – Where is your proof? When and where was is debated? By whom?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
It is horrendous that people would take the struggling tax payers funds through their research grants and use them to lie and minipulate data. Everyone knows there is no global warming going on since 1995. It is just a fact. Anyone sticking up for these absolute skum bags should be shouted down. Of course people who work for the government and get grants for the government if they are of bad will- have MOTIVATION to skew and lie on the data! You would have to be an absolute imbecile to not be able to see this. Since there is federal funds involved here there should be an investigation by the FBI by FEDERAL LAW. These people should be tried under federal law when found guilty- if so after a thorough investigation. Everyone who cares about themselves their country, the world and truth should stand up and demand a grand investigation of the IPCC and these other implicated institutions- and anyone found to have been acting conspiratorially should serve a long sentence.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
77. Philip H. Says:
The emails I have read online do not have the tone of someone trying to protect intellectual property but of trying to prevent skeptics from examining their data for mistakes. If you found out how to do fusion at room temperature it seems to me you would want to provide data for other scientists to replicate your experiment.
If indeed data is not being shared as you said because of property rights it makes me more suspicious not less of the entire body of evidence.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Jon is just a liar. What a total FOOL. Dont even respond to him- he is just going to try and use some fring platonc argument cause NO ONE could be so stupid not to see the truth.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
And one other comment if I may
At one time There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And someone name Gallileo was labeled a denier – along with another dude named DaVinci. THey were subjected to redicule and threatened with jail and fines.
Sound familiar?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@Jon
To add to Eric’s tremendous post. Interestingly in the files released, which I have, I have direct monetary Motive.
The CRU received about $22 million dollars in the last few years ( I have the xls). That’s a lot of budget, that’s a lot of:
- that’s a lot of prestige
- that’s a lot of world travel to Bangkok, Havana, Cairo, Botswana, Kenya, and other great locations where the climate change gurus met this year (there’s talk in the e-mails of buying tickets)
- that’s a lot of banquets with world dignitaries
- that’s a lot of cigars
- that’s a lot of mojitos
- that’s a lot of dinners at fine eating establisments (Mortons is the low end btw)
- hobnobbing with Al Gore
- hobnobbing with high society
There’s plenty of motive.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
130. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
This is ilegal conspiracy and the emails prove it. Now it is tie to look into their computers and see what they have minipulated.
____________
No, it’s not conspiracy. It’s partisan wankery. You people are taking a few poorly-worded emails out of context and spinning them into something sinister, which they aren’t. Not one of you can provide any proof of ACTUAL data manipulation or ACTUAL interference with peer-review. All you have is speculation and conjecture, and you know it.
In another day or two, this will all blow over. We will continue to push for policies to deal with the reality of catastrophic climate change, and you will continue tilting at windmills.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I dunno, Elroy. Think about it. If that info gets released, who gets in trouble? The person who releases it.
Here’s an example- ACORN, who our government is in bed with. Look at all those videos and all those incriminating evidence (not withstanding the voting fraud registrations). Why are they not dismantled? They’re still around. There’s no massive Federal investigation to be rid of them. Further, the save face action by Congress to cut their funding has a loophole so they can still end up getting taxpayer money. Oh, and btw, any organization that backs any political party, by law, is not supposed to be funded with taxpayer money. They are. Is Congress going to be investigated?
But in the end, with ACORN, who’s being sued? The people who made and released the films.
Likewise, what would happen here if that info is leaked? Keep in mind our government is in bed with human caused climate change.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Toaster, then how do you reconcile the EPA and NASA scientists who were ostracized and silenced for releasing reports proving climate change is due to natural phenomena, not humanity? This is the exact thing these emails and files state!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Government FUNDS their research. This is what scientists live for…. Government, if we actually cause global warming/cooling/climate change(whatever it is since it changes by the decade), gains more control in our private lives, more power, more money.
So they want more money from the government. Do the scientists themselves want power over your life?
Are there other people, other than scientists, who are like this? I’m sure you’re going to say politicians. But other people other than politicians?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
@toasterhead
Thank you for joining us at this late hour.
Actually:
- we the people have thousands of e-mails proving fraud and collusion (not a few poorly crafted ones as you say)
- we the people have the source code of the data with annotations proving fraud
- we have proof of many things sinister, criminal, and unethical in the e-mails (read files and e-mails)
- we have PROOF of actual data manipulation (they claimed it in the e-mails)
It might blow over at the sensational level but at the academic level, this will reverberate for years – trust me, I know.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
yes it is Toaster LIAR. You are just an evil fool- of bad will. ANYONE- even partially retarded can see the truth here. You are just one of the people who wants to hide all of this. These people if shown to have acted out on what they wrote- after a LONG and thorough investigation should serve BIG time. This is one of the most serious issues of our time. It effects everyone. Lieing and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
137. Justanonymous Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
The CRU received about $22 million dollars in the last few years ( I have the xls). That’s a lot of budget, that’s a lot of:
__________
Wow. $22 million, over several years?
That’s about what ExxonMobil earns in net income in five hours.
But it’s the scientists who have the monetary motive to manipulate climate data, right?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Toaster head is just another evil LIAR of bad will.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
139. Eric Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Toaster, then how do you reconcile the EPA and NASA scientists who were ostracized and silenced for releasing reports proving climate change is due to natural phenomena, not humanity? This is the exact thing these emails and files state!
____________
Simple. They don’t exist. They’re a work of fiction, just like the proof of data manipulation and peer-review interference that you science deniers keep claiming exists but consistently fail to provide.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
144. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Toaster head is just another evil LIAR of bad will.
__________
Prove it.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Even a partially retarded person can easily and cearly see the truth here. You are just one of the people who wants to hide all of this because you are of bad will and a total liar. These people if shown to have acted out on what they wrote- after a LONG and thorough investigation should serve BIG time. This is one of the most serious issues of our time. It effects everyone. Lieing and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Jon, you’re ignoring the actual argument. And you’re not making the simple connection.
Government wants control. The scientists want money and prestige. They “prove” what the government wants them to prove, and thus we have a partnership, a sybiotic relationship, so to say.
And, yes, politicians want this, too. Lawyers want stuff like this. A good way to help our healthcare system would be to open up state boundaries for health insurance. It would help to review tort reform which…the lack of…profits the lawyers who help people sue doctors for exorbitant amounts of money. So, what would our government get for a public option? Again, more control in our personal lives and more money.
So, it’s not just scientists and politicians.
This runs deep. We have too much corruption all around. You keep overlooking the real argument at hand.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@ toasterhead
I’m not a “denier” as you call it but post your e-mail add, I’ll forward you a 160MB of proof.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
You are the proof of your own lies and bad will OBVIOUSLY. Your posts are absurd and evil You are not even outraged at the tons of emials PROVING there is a conspiracy. Not maybe in the roswell and 911 sense but in the loose political sense. These people should be immediately fired for all of this. ANd if they acted on any of it they should go to jail.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
What will it take to weaken the body of evidence in a serious way???
Are you being serious??
We were skeptical before, global warming has been dead for awhile, and now climate-change is going the same way.
We don’t need the mainstream media to hop on board anymore. The train left the station long ago and the lamestream media has been left in the dust.
Preach to the choir because we’re not listening anymore.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
That’s a losing argument, toaster. Here’s how easy it is…the climate change research are works of fiction.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
toastrhead is the Denier. The emails are there for all to read. He is just a bad person of bad will. A liar.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
147. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
This is one of the most serious issues of our time. It effects everyone.
_________
How exactly do a few emails between scientists in the UK “effect” you?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Facts are facts- we have them- they are liars colluding together to skew the truth- hes toast.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@ toasterhead
But, be warned — you have to be willing to read the proof and make an informed decision. If you’re praying at the altar to some golden god, you might not see what gets shown to you.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
So, Eric, it’s trial lawyers too. Anyone else?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The best way to deal with trolls: ignore them.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
151. Eric Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
That’s a losing argument, toaster. Here’s how easy it is…the climate change research are works of fiction.
________
Maybe so. But we liberals are going to push through climate legislation anyway. And there’s nothing you can do about it.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
It is not a few it is TONS of the. And they talk about altering the climate data- and that data is being used by idiot liars like yourself to make evil legislation for the world. BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS- you only ask the question and play dumb because you are just another common liar!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@toasterheard
It appears you’re not willing to READ and seek truth — there’s a label for that, religious fanaticism.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
and an evil liar too.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Even a partially retarded person can see the truth here. You are just one of the people who wants to hide all of this. These people if shown to have acted out on what they wrote- after a LONG and thorough investigation should serve BIG time. This is one of the most serious issues of our time. It effects everyone. Lieing and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
jones,
~ “Your just a LIAR Jon. An evil Liar.”
~ “Your all just liars and out to be ashamed of your evil worthless selves. You are all going to hell anyways.”
You are seriously troubled. However, this is exactly what I’d expect.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Maybe there isn’t much I can do about it, but when our taxes go out of hand and our government drives up the deficit and debt even more and the dollar collapses, you have only yourselves to blame.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
@ toasterhead
Please don’t use the world “libera” I don’t think you understand what it means.
If you’re going to push something without regard to the people’s will, that’s called dictatorship and if there’s something that Americans detest is dictatorship.
You’re not a liberal, you don’t even know what the word means my friend.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
159. Justanonymous Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
It appears you’re not willing to READ and seek truth — there’s a label for that, religious fanaticism.
_________
I’ve already read them. All the key ones you people are screaming about, anyway. They don’t prove anything, except that you can make anything sound sinister if you take it out of context.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
These people should investigated immediately and should go to jail minimum of 10 to 20 years if they actually altered data. This is the most outrageous story of our time.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Jon, you’re ignoring the argument at hand. Because you insist on this, I have nothing else to believe other than you have nothing meaningful to say.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
164. Justanonymous Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
If you’re going to push something without regard to the people’s will, that’s called dictatorship and if there’s something that Americans detest is dictatorship.
____________
And yet they elected George W. Bush twice.
Well, once, technically.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@toasterhead
Sorry friend, you’re not logical – can’t argue with someone who isn’t willing to read….read all of them toasterhead and read them with an open mind. If you’re reasonable, you’ll see the deception.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
You didn’t read them toaster head- your just a liar- and if you did you would be outraged if you have any decency at all but you dont cause your just SKUM. Absolute and TOTAL skum. There is no defense for this illegal conspiratorial behavior. You and your ilk will go to hell for distortion and embellishment.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Justan is right on the liberal thing. Technically, you’re a progressive.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
No, I’m just listening. Trying to understand the other side’s arguments.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
166. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
These people should investigated immediately and should go to jail minimum of 10 to 20 years if they actually altered data. This is the most outrageous story of our time.
____________
What law was broken?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
toaster head is just a liar trying to get the last post in so the onlookers see his/her lies. This is deserving of a huge investigation and nothing short of criminal prosecution of the implications check out.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
And then we went ahead and elected the biggest dictator of all!!
I think we’re finally waking up though.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
(Responding to Eric.)
November 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
The people who are implicated should ALL be fired for just writing this stuff. Even f they did not skew data. You cannot be thinking this way and writing this way when you are a sceintist in a position of public power. But if they actually did skew the data… they should go down big time- 20 years.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
@toasterhead
Freedom of Information Laws to begin with not that you’ll acknowledge this – you’re just going to deny deny deny. I could just write blue blue blue blue blue and you’d disagree.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Can anyone tell me what link sent you here?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
THis is the biggest story in 15 years. It is a total outrage. Were tlaking thousands of emials talking about lieing to fool the public into believing in the global wamring that the data shows i snot happeneing.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I looked this up under google news for climategate.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
That’s a misnomer, toaster. You more than likely refer to the wars, which were actually popular in the beginning, but all democracies suffer from heavy war weariness. Let’s also not forget that both parties almost unanimously voted in favor of war.
Be that as it may, Bush was and is a progressive, like FDR and Wilson before him, who care little or nothing for the US Constitution (but so does most of our government anymore) and would rather quickly enact something and then “worry whether or not it’s legal later,” as FDR would muse.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
‘warmaquiddick’ was my link
November 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Well, Jon, I don’t know how else to explain the connection here that drives my viewpoint. I’ve already stated it twice.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@toasterhead – These “scientists” are the core group at the IPCC that so much of this “settled science” of AGW is based on. It is the core research that is driving this push for Cap n’ Trade, Carbon Credits, Carbon Taxes, and this massive push for more control over every aspect of our lives. And what do we find? The entire foundation is based on lies and fraud.
It’s not just a “few scientists in the UK” either. This includes US scientists like Michael Mann and the current Chief Technology Advisor for the White House – John P Holdren. That same piece of trash that wrote the pseudo-science textbook – Ecoscience.
That’s what we’re dealing with here. We’re dealing with fraudulent science driven by a political agenda for more control over the entire globe and over every individuals own freedom. It is anti-human, it is anti-liberty and it is anti-American. And it is totally fraudulent.
John P Holdren describes the need for a global government to implement population controls like forced abortions and licenses to have children. That’s what we’re dealing with here.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
So you’re denying the importance of this new information confirming what we already knew about human nature – scientists coming up with data to support AGW in order to continue to receive the gravy train of state funding from governments who want to use that information to regulate and tax more?
Classic.
YOU’RE A DENIER!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Any Beck fans here?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Lying and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law and investigated by the FBI if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Ack, I gotta go, but let me throw in a few other things before I go to consider:
If it’s mostly our fault for climate change(among the other things I’ve mentioned before from ice ages, to El Nino, etc), why did one very recent study state that if America cut all of its fossil fuel use to nill, over the next 100 years it might-might only lower temperature by an average of .10 degrees? If our use of fossil fuels is so bad and we should go to biofuel, why is it studies have been coming out about how inefficient and more pollutant their creation processes are?
You have to zoom out- look at the big picture. The silenced scientists, who’s funding who, who gains what, what are other, but related studies saying, what is Earth’s actual climate history?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Well Jon
First I went to CNN and typed climategate = results 0
Second I went to NBC and typed climategate = results 1 (buried in some blog)
Third I went to ABC and typed climategate = results 0
Fourth I went to CBS and typed climategate = results 0
Then a friend sent me a link to this and then I found out there was a huge story.f
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@ Jon
who’s beck?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@ Jon
are you a greenpeace member?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
177. Justanonymous Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
@toasterhead
Freedom of Information Laws to begin with not that you’ll acknowledge this – you’re just going to deny deny deny. I could just write blue blue blue blue blue and you’d disagree.
_________
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. Now, can you prove – based on the emails – that information required to be disclosed under FOIA was destroyed? The UK FOIA law, like the US FOIA law, contains a long list of exemptions, and does not require that employees of government agencies, or universities receiving government funding, disclose every single communication they have ever written.
So unless you can prove that whatever information was destroyed was not covered by any of these exemptions, you can only speculate that FOIA law was violated.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
are you a greenpeace member?
I am not. Just your run of the mill computer gearhead.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
170. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
You and your ilk will go to hell for distortion and embellishment.
__________
Distortion and embellishment is a mortal sin now?
Looks like hell will be full of 80s hair-metal bands. Yikes!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Toaster, that is why we can ALL agree we need a grand investigation. We will fid out what can cannot be proved one we get in to the computers and see everything they have been doing. But they already are obviously crooked people- the emails PROVE their state of mind and what they says they were doing. Lying and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law and investigated by the FBI if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished if they acted on these outrageous things.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
[...] [...]
November 24th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
@ toasterhead
Well the e-mails say they were refusing to comply with FOIA so by that account YES, it’s provable. Now, I’m not entirely sure if the PHD climatologist is a lawyer per se. But then again, are you? Because if you’re going to go down to the definition of the word “is” then I’m going to need a supreme court.
Let’s just say that there is enough proof to bring a case before the courts that illegal activities has occurred. We’ll have our answer in 12 months after the lawsuits are settled.
Until then you can have your viewpoint and I can have mine and then we can appeal afterwards ad nauseum (ala polanski) and we’ll never agree.
blue blue blue blue blue blue toaser. you’re going to disagree.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
192. jones Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Toaster, that is why we can ALL agree we need a grand investigation. We will fid out what can cannot be proved one we get in to the computers and see everything they have been doing.
_________
You don’t want an investigation. You want a circus. You want a distraction from Copenhagen and the US cap-and-trade bill.
This is all nothing. At worst, a university ethics panel will look at it and slap a few people on the wrist for not following proper procedures. No laws were broken, no data was manipulated, there is no hoax. You people are pathetic.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Speaking to Chris Mooneys restating of the argument.. Let me suggest a different test..
if what he says is true , could you delete all published material by the group involved in the email exchanges and still have a firm basis for saying APG was aproven consensus opinion based on what was left?
I think not! as the 13 yrs of emails(between dozens of scientists) are a chronicle of key elements of all the IPCC reports and much more. Furthermore the very candid discussions which reveal the uncertainty about where baselines should be drawn and how data should be presented confirm great uncerainty. The expression of frustration as the last decade fails to show warming leads to all sorts of ideas as to how to show warming including blocking access to peer review journals for skeptical work.If this was a medical study, say on a new cancer therapy what do you think would happen to the physicians?…. Re-examination of raw data is awaited
November 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Untrue toaster,
You allege that no crime was committed but the way you’re talking if we stood 4 feet away from a man and saw him shoot another, you’d probably say that no crime was committed.
Repeating it doesn’t make it so. READ THE E_MAILS ALL OF THEM. You’ll find your prooof there. Crimes were committed, science was twisted, data deleted, people obstructed and ostracised.
After this, NO there shouldn’t be any agreement at copenhagen. We need to revisit all of the science. That’s not my fault, maybe the people at CRU should’ve behaved more ethically. If they had, there wouldn’t be a scandal right now. And there is a scandal.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
For all those here who think the IPCC is some kind of demigod, consider this:
I attended a conference of more than a dozen Nobel Prize winners including Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman. He was in a panel discussion with a couple of other scientists and went on and on about how dire global warming is. Then in the end a Nobel laureate got up in the audience and honestly and simply asked whether the gentlemen on stage could actually cite any PRACTICAL, SPECIFIC measures and technologies for significantly halting global warming.
Guess what. Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, could not name a single one (he murmured something like “gasification” without sounding either confident or specific). If this is the plight even of the IPCC chairman, how can we trust others??
November 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Show me the data!!!!! Publish all RAW data!!!!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
ToasterBoy,
YOU are the pathetic one. You’re ready to dismiss unfiltered, legitimate emails that are blatant about the inaccuracies of GW as “nothing?” The lid is blown off this charade and you laugh it off as nothing. The truth stings, apparently.
And you’re right. We DO want a distraction from Copenhagen. Why do you want to destroy our economy? No data was manipultaed? That’s funny. And you, ToasterDork, are a moron.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
We are on the brink of a man made global disaster. This is the real thing. As such it is the solemn duty of those in power across the globe to institute martial law and discontinue, forcefully if need be, all carbon dioxide emissions. The shear scope of this emergency necessitates drastic measures.
No, no. I have a better idea. We should set up a bureaucracy of international proportions, impose cap and trade policy, sell derivatives dreamed up by Al Gore and Ken Lay that we’ll call “carbon credits”, and line the pockets of brokerage firms like Bear Stearns.
Make haste. There’s not a moment to lose. The fate of Earth and all its inhabitants hangs in the balance.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
You claim “There is a massive body of science … showing that global warming is real and human caused.”
Perhaps you’d like to share with us exactly what is the “evidence” ? Just a few words of your own and a page reference to the latest IPCC report detailing the evidence. I can’t find any and I challenge any alarmist to show a single shed of evidence.
The world has been warming for 200 years since the Little Ice Age and the rate of warming between 1910 and 1940 was greater than any subsequent period, despite a 1200% increase in the rate of fossil fuel burning after 1945.
You might also like to indicate exactly where the “alarming” warming caused by man is supposed to be ? The last 11 years ? 30 years ? 60 years ?
You’ll also find the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file interesting … programmer’s comments on the program creating the graph showing the tiny 0.7 degree increase in temperature in the past century. The CRU programmer comments: “Oh, my giddy aunt. What a crap crap system.”
November 24th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It now appears someone has run the climategate code to which the trick email refers.
Below is a link to the before and after results.
It seems that others across the world may have used the same modeling trick.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590
November 24th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
If the science was obvious it would be repeatable and predictable. Chaotic enivonments ARE UNPREDICTABLE no matter what computers ‘say.’ I took a physics class in a large reputable university, in additon I took a differential equations class at the same school. There are some mathematical formulas that ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE.
“There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused.” THIS LINE IS PROOF THE AUTHORS ARE MORONS. SCIENCE ISNT ‘ratified’ by bodies; gravity exists regardless of if a scientific body ratifies it.
If there was one formula or test to prove human climate change there would not be multiple ‘models’ there would be one model. Like gravity has one model.
Climate change models (notice the ‘s’) produce different results if you tweak the numbers. Thus these emails are important to see how they are tweaking the inputs to achieve the desired outbuts.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Jon
The motive is money, 2.6 Million Pounds as far as the UK side of the fraud is concerned, without giving the politicians what they want there would be no funding and that means no job.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Chris:
I simply can not believe that you are continueing to defend your position – you are actually imagining data that does NOT exist.
The hockey stick is out there, it is in the IPCC report, and without it, all sorts of other factors come into play.
The result is that we are NOT in a crisis, the global temperatures are stalled, all in a decade in which more carbon dioxide has been pumped into the atmosphere than ever before. The Climate models are WRONG.
I really believe you should go back and start reading the hacked emails, and begin to realize that the PROOF behind global warming has been manipulated – data has been fabricated to make it look they why they wanted.
That is NOT science. They did not prove anything.
Instead of searching for truth, or working for a cure to global warming – these scientists have been actively trying to COVER-UP the situation with the data.
They pretended there was a consensus -
There has not been the “multiple studies” that you are actually imaging exist –
For their initial study, the scientists have been REFUSING to submit the underlying data so that it can be reviewed and CHECKED.
NOW do you get it?
Before you make an assessment you really should understand what the other people are saying.
.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
It would be interesting if someone were to hack into Mark Maranos’ computer and obtain his emails.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Everyone, watch this BBC debate on climate change & the hacked e-mails.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8374523.stm
Half way into the video they discuss the hacked e-mails.. very interesting coming from the BBC.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
As a Libertarian, my problem with Global Warming is not that it is false, but that it’s being politicized. It’s obvious that it’s being used to promote governmental intervention and the suppression of individual rights. Is the science really good enough to require draconian governmental intervention? Is the evidence really good enough that it predicts the end of the world in the near future? It kind of reminds me of preachers giving Hellfire and Brimstone sermons – scaring the Hell out of the congregation and then pass the collection plate – good way to accumulate power.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Chris:
I believe that you are just not getting how the scientific process has been subverted by these people at CRU.
You are pretending that a full scientific process has been gone through on what you say are “multiple studies.”
That is simply not the case.
The underlying data has never been checked fully because it has never been submitted – which was originally professionally required under the peer-review process, and laster it was LEGALLY regired under the Freedom of Information Act, which these scientists REFUSED to comply with.
Have you READ the emails in which the “scientists” do not ACCEPT the values in the data, and instead seek to manipulate the data – in essence FABRICATING a picture which simple did not exist.
Your headline mentions burden of proof – the burden of proof is on the scientists to show the data behind their global warming thesis.
That is EXACTLY the point, they have not done that – AND from these emails it appears that they are unable to.
I really have to urge you to read what is going on before you write pieces like you have above.
.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
[...] folks think it’s not that big a deal, but it’s an interesting turn in the climate change policy [...]
November 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused.”
This statement is simply NOT TRUE.
And that is why these emails are so outrageous.
You have been FOOLED into believing this statement – the data behind the science has been manipulated, and actually FABRICATED to make a DESIRED RESULT.
That is NOT science at all.
Chris, you are working at Discover Magazine, you really should read through what is going on before you start making statement like this.
Your position is a real disappointment.
.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I am so relieved this is being cracked open for the public to see. Anthropogenic climate science is without evidence and is now with deep shame. Go on, dig deep for cover like the politicians will, but get ready to hand over those Nobel Prizes to the guys who hacked the files. These guys are truly heroic and champions of truth. Maybe the trillion bleeding heart dollars can go to some more deserving causes now hey?
November 24th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
There is a massive body of science that’s been tested and retested as inconclusive and contradictory to itself. Thee is a massive body of science….that was faked by the leaders of their movement. There is a massive body of science…that snookerd billions of dollars from governments from around the world. There is a massive body of science….that is simply fake. There is a massive body of scientists who bullied and oppressed opposition to their fairy tales.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Let me be clear based on the harsh feelings some people will have with my other statement.
This position of this editorial ignores two very basic facts.
Fact: Both supporters and critics of global warming agree (based on their own studies as relayed in emails) the planet is getting cooler, and one side had to lie about their position for monetary gain and political influence.
Fact: Without the globe getting warmer, there is no global warming.
That makes people who believe global warming real religious, not real scientists.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
To me, I’ve been skeptical since Gore has refused to debate anyone and those that deny cannot be heard in an open forum. This is the nature of scientific debate, theories tested by those that don’t believe until they cannot help but believe after being exposed to the evidence and questioning it from all sides in a public forum.
That the AGW promoters publish data but won’t allow, for example, joint testimony and debate one has to be skeptical of those claims that apparently cannot withstand scrutiny. This is human nature, indicative of someone trying to deceive, and not necessarily only aligned with AGW.
There is a big following and at this point a lot of money invested in what appears to be bad science, so changing minds now will be that much harder….but necessary.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
sanfordsports@232
You say:
“Fact: Both supporters and critics of global warming agree (based on their own studies as relayed in emails) the planet is getting cooler”
I say, provide us with some scientific references to back up your assertions.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Lying and conspiracy CANNOT by tolerated at all. They should be tried under violation of Federal Law and investigated by the FBI if they were receiving federal grants. This is a total abomination and ANYONE regardless of what they think about man and climate- should want to see these people adequately punished- if they acted on these outrageous things. The evidence is as clear as day. The only people speaking against the obvious truth and the statements with include the individuals names- is lying evil people of bad will. Just the truth. These people should be massively investigated, then indicted, and sent to a long prison sentence for what they have done. If they were skewing data that is used to effect the lives of people all over the world- through proposed GW legislation- and once again if they have federal grants- then this is a federal crime and they should be tried for violating federal law.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
10. Robert Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“[It has not been proven that t]he scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.”
That doesn’t matter. The CRU gathered all of the primary data used by the IPCC in developing this so-called “theory”. It is because of the data CRU reported that there is any “consensus” on climate change at all. Climate scientists all across the planet have depended on that data.
If that data was cooked, as it appears to have been, then the whole theory is cooked. Pardon the pun. …………………………………………………………………………………….
You are right on the money as it relates to reliable data. GIGO especially if this is a primary center point for data collection passed on as “reliable data” to other scientists for their own analysis. Other questions would relate to data and modeling validity and the assumption of different variables – postive and negative influence assumptions. Regardless, at least the debate is open and we will see whether science or politics prevails.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
This idea of a “widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions” has been completely FABRICATED to HIDE THE LACK OF DATA BEHIND THE GLOBAL WARMING THESIS.
I realize it may take a level of maturity for some believers to process the new information in their heads and form new opinions.
However, let me ask you this: How many of these national academies and major scientific institutions have performed their own studies, and collected their own data?
Few – just because a survey was done does NOT mean that all these academies and institutions performed their own independent investigations.
YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED. I know it may be difficult for one to realize and accept this, you can do it.
It is important for one to realize how central to the global warming community the folks at CRU have been – how the IPCC has relied on their data – and there really isn’t much other data out there.
If there were all these other multiple studies out there, why would the people at CRU attempt to hide data, fabricate the data and refuse to comply with Freedom of Information requests ??? You are imagining all this other data out there, which is simply not the case.
I am shocked by the main stream media’s lack of attention to this SCANDAL – and shocked by the bloggers refusing to actually read through what has gone on.
Much much more is expected of Discover Magazine, and to the posters on this blog, please read through the emails, read through the commentaries.
Once you read one of the emails in which they describe changing the data, and then they actually start to explain why, then you will realize what has been going on here.
.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
And let this be a lesson to anyone out there who knows of someone falsifying scientific data. If you dont come forward with the truth of what you know then you could be the next one to be exposed.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
to all the idiots who keep saying “the deniers haven’t read a single IPCC report” so therefore they don’t know what they are talking about….
you do realize you can’t use the documents that are in questions to prove doubts about the same documents, right? anyone with half a brain cell should be able to understand that.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
This post is pretty muddy. But unlike the creationist/denialists twaddle above, it is at least sane.
It is axiomatic that you cannot rely upon the exact same temperature dataset that you declare is fraudulent as proof that the planet is cooling.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Or to put it another way:
1. You loons have been swearing up and down for years that all of the data shows the planet is cooling.
2. Now you are swearing up and down that a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists have deliberately falsified this same data to make it look like the planet is warming.
3. If no. 1 is true, then no. 2 cannot be true. If no. 2 is true, then no. 1 cannot be true.
For people who are not insane, this is called a contradiction. For denialist conspiracy loons, it’s called business as usual.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
@Doug Watts
It must suck to have your entire AGW fantasy come crashing down around you. BWAHAHAHA!
November 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
This is HORRIBLE science!! Show us ALL the data! Hiding data absolutely VIOLATES the basic integrity of science!! This is a RELIGION, but it cannot be called SCIENCE!
November 24th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
For AGW to be a “fantasy,” then the Earth should be as cold as Mars, which it isn’t, and fossil fuels should not combust, which they do. I know for the scientifically illiterate these two statements are puzzling. You loons need to all get on the same page. Here’s some pointers.
1. Does C02 trap solar radiation? Yes or no.
If no, then the Earth should be as cold as Mars.
2. Do fossil fuels burn? Yes or no.
If yes, they produce CO2.
3. Are CO2 levels going up? Yes or no.
There is only a yes to this, since it’s measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Oh that’s right, all those records are fraudulent, too.
4. Are global average temperatures increasing. Yes or no?
Well we know they are going down because some emails just appeared proving that scientists have been cooking the books to make them go up. And it’s obviously that if you’re a scientist determined to doctor the data to make it look like it’s going up, you will make sure when you’re done they will actually look like they’re going down. That’s what they call a “trick.”
Yay, I passed Denialist 101 !!!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
To all the show me the data people:
1. Start with the link to the just released Copenhagen Diagnosis Climate Science Report:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
as given by Wes Rolley in comment #1 above. If you had started this some 240 some comments ago, you’d already be well on your way.
2. For a synopsis read the media release and the summary.
3. Read the biographies of the authors of the report.
Don’t want to accept their words of conclusion at face value?
4. Download the report and read that.
Still want verification?
4. Park yourself in some University library and start reading the research references given on pages 54-60 of the report.
Still more?
Maybe you have time to read the lab books of every grad student who ever did reseach that fed into the references that were used to write the report.
Still not satisfied?
Maybe you have time to repeat all the measurements personally, yourself.
Be sure to fly over the artic to make sure those sattelite photos we’ve all seen have not been photoshopped.
Or, at some point, you have to accept the word of reputable, knowledgable people who have read and evaluated the work of other reputable knowledgable people. Because you can’t actually do everything all by yourself.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
244. Doug Watts Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
For AGW to be a “fantasy,” then the Earth should be as cold as Mars……………..
And your conclusion with your premise would be why? Mars’ atmosphere is thinner yet with signifcantly more CO2. The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, and 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen, water, and methane, ergo one would think despite distance from the sun, it should be hotter based on the what variables impact warming.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Wow. After 246 posts, one thing is strikingly clear: the Silly Little Denialists clearly don’t have all of their stories straight, and they’ve begun to contradict one another. First Michael Mann is supposedly the leader of the entire IPCC (which is false), but then he’s not but his paper is the only one the IPCC has used to make recommendations about AGW (which is also false). Now Michael Mann’s dataset is the only climate dataset on the planet. I think you know what’s coming: that’s false, too.
It’s like Amateur Hour for a basic understanding of science. At least get your stories straight, guys.
I pray to God that none of you actually hold degrees in science.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I just compiled the code and ran what was leaked, wow – yeah it makes a difference — the trick really does make it look like things are warming up vs the “untricked” version which shows a downward trend.
It looks like what these people have done:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590
I’d actually seen that graph before a long time ago or one very similar but over the last few years everything had been replaced with the hockey stick.
Hmmmmm
@bilbo — please please please I beg you, stop behaving like a 3rd grader. The pettiness is deafening. We’re trying to work here.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
245. Gaythia Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
To all the show me the data people:
1. Start with the link to the just released Copenhagen Diagnosis Climate Science Report:
…………………………………………………………………………
With all due respect, the argument is not about whether the climate is warming or cooling, it is about the causal effect of same. Whether all the ice is melting in the Arctic and Antarctic is irrelevant; the question is what are the primary causes? If thousands of scientists base their analysis on faulty data, their conclusions could certainly be suspect. You apparently have already drawn your conclusion. People continually muddle the message of legitimate use of resources with the AGW mantra implying anyone who denies AGW is driving down the highway throwing their garbage out the window.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I just compiled the code and ran what was leaked, wow – yeah it makes a difference — the trick really does make it look like things are warming up vs the “untricked” version which shows a downward trend.
Please tell me you’re not trying to replicate climate science on your home computer. Please tell me you’re not.
If climate science can be done that easily, then why aren’t you able to clearly refute it?
November 24th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Or if you’re doing climate science on your home computer, JA, at least tell me you have a degree in atmospheric science and know what the hell you’re talking about.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
you’re just going to deny deny deny. I could just write blue blue blue blue blue and you’d disagree.
Coming from a denialist, no less!
Oh, the irony!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
The simple fact is that Mooney is a GIANT HYPOCRITE. He claims to represent science and yet he defends this very clear example of scientific fraud and totally un-scientific criminal behavior at the CRU
GiveMeABreak:
Excuse me for sounding silly, but what the hell are you talking about? Mooney’s post isn’t “defending” this issue at all – in fact, he’s even allowing for the possibility that every word of it is true!
Mooney is arguing that there are still over two decades’ worth of data and published science (most of it done before any of these researchers even collected the data in question) that back up what they’re saying. In other words, if you’re trying to debunk climate science, you’ll have to harder than just this.
But this will undoubtedly be like talking to a brick wall…
November 24th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
248. Justanonymous Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I just compiled the code and ran what was leaked, wow – yeah it makes a difference — the trick really does make it look like things are warming up vs the “untricked” version which shows a downward trend. ………………………………………………===>
Are there updated graphs with the same x-axis timeline ?
Thks
November 24th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Bilbo,
Someone ought to tell you that your constant ad hominem attacks and failure to address any of the actual scientific data make you look terribly foolish.
Science relies on eliminating variables to obtain some degree of certainty about causation of a phenomenon or its effects. Many skeptical of the AGW theories point out that climate is too terribly complex to observe one variable (CO2) and pin causation of climate change upon it.
Given that temperatures are rising on other planets in the solar system, not just little old earth, it would seem that another phenomenon might be responsible for warming–one over which we have absolutely no control (for example, that little thing in the sky called THE SUN).
The possibility needs to be explored. As does the presence and influence of industrial sulfates (which can have the effect of cooling by dispersion of incoming radiation), and myriad other variables.
If we’re going to do the correct thing (indeed if there is anything that can be done), we need the right information…which we clearly can’t have while people are falsifying or suppressing data.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Oh man, JA – I’m so incredibly glad that you posted that link regarding the IPCC tree-ring data code. Here’s what Mann’s email really says:
We usually stop the (data) series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data the we use.
In other words, they’re not colluding or scheming – they’re being good scientists!!! The reason they stop the data at 1960 is found in the phrase because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data the we use.” There was uncertainty in the accuracy of the present-day tree-ring data due to other interactive variables (droughts, etc.), so they were thrown out to take a conservative approach. The remainder of the tree-ring data was backed up by other datasets (other tree cores, ice cores) and was deemed reliable. This is basic, grade-school scientific methodology.
And it was all sorted out (and discussed in the paper) in 1998. You guys aren’t just lying – you’re distorting history.
And one of your main arguments from “ClimateGate” just got diminished to nothing.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
253. bilbo Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm ……………………..
Who are the owners and collectors of the data and who manages the sources of data? My understanding is that also is an area of controversy. Can the data be collected publically or is the data collected available publically?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Artaban@255
Given that temperatures are rising on other planets in the solar system, not just little old earth, it would seem that another phenomenon might be responsible for warming–one over which we have absolutely no control (for example, that little thing in the sky called THE SUN).
Firstly Artaban – if global warming was being caused by THE SUN we’d expect more than rising temperatures on other planets in the solar system – we’d expect rising (or more correctly anomalous) temperatures on ALL bodies of the solar system.
Also, you should think about this too: On our Earth temperatures rise in one hempisphere in the summer, and fall in winter – what’s so surprising about temperatures rising (and falling!) on other planets?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Dr Rob@246
And your conclusion with your premise would be why? Mars’ atmosphere is thinner yet with signifcantly more CO2. The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, and 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen, water, and methane, ergo one would think despite distance from the sun, it should be hotter based on the what variables impact warming.
You do know that we can measure the temperature on Mars? What Doug is saying is simple enough – without the heat retention of the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere our planet would be as cold as Mars is.
BTW, what’s your speciality Dr Rob?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I love how the loons claim that the “emails” PROVE everything is false. When examined, they prove nothing.
Let’s examine the “hide” assertion, which is the one that the loons are fixated on. The data “hidden” are tree ring measurements from after 1960. Since we are only interested in tree rings because they can be a proxy for temperature before measurements were available, we don’t need tree ring data for after 1960 as a proxy for actual temperature measurements. As such the tree ring data were not used in a graph (but, of course, were included in the published paper), because it was obvious that they diverged from the actual temperature readings after 1960. Why they diverge after 1960 (but follow the actual temperature trend before 1960) is still not known and is being actively investigated.
So that’s it. That’s the “smoking gun” that proves EVERYTHING is false.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Sounds like the hole in the ozone layer, still under investigation, daily weather forecasts 95% correct, sure, high cholesterol will give you a heart attack, now genetics, previous cyclical ice ages, then warmer periods, Sydney Austalias “clean” water problem, now bottled water banning is the “flavour” of the month, and Sydney Austalias phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. Somebody seems to benefit, funding for “scientists”, “green” producers, or lose, CFC producers, incandescent light bulb manufacturers, job losses.
Uncle Doug once said, “people are just no damn good”!
November 25th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Eamon @258
(And also incidentally to refute Doug Watts @260, and his ridiculous claim about the tree ring data being “the smoking gun’ that proves EVERYTHING is false”–Dougy, there’s a lot of other data that calls AGW into question.)
“Firstly Artaban – if global warming was being caused by THE SUN we’d expect more than rising temperatures on other planets in the solar system – we’d expect rising (or more correctly anomalous) temperatures on ALL bodies of the solar system.”
Eamon, as you probably well know, our ability to monitor temperature changes on “ALL bodies of the solar system” is severely limited by the number of probes out there. However, let me respond to your query with the data we do have:
1. Triton (largest moon of Neptune) experienced a 2 degree C increase from 1995 to 1997 (you’ll note this is more extreme than that experienced on Earth over the last 50 years). [Elliot, J. L., et al., 1998, "Global warming on Triton," Nature, 393:765-767. ]
2. Mars; “From observed albedo changes they have used models to estimate a global annual air temperature increase of 0.65° C.” [Fenton, L. K., P. E. Geissler, and R. M. Haberle, 2006, "Global warming on Mars," AGU Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #P23A-0047.] If the climate-forcing is entirely albedo driven (doubtful), that still begs to the question as to how much albedo changes (through dust kicked up by seismic, weather, other natural activity) is influencing our own.
Furthermore, there is satellite imagery showing a recession of Martian polar caps, observed over for four years now.
3. Pluto has experienced warming beyond it’s perihelion and an increase in atmospheric pressure (which, as you know, can happen when frozen elements are warmed and enter the atmosphere), for reasons which as yet stand as unknown/unverified.
Other observed evidence of warming/increase in atmoshperic pressure include Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. There is speculation changes may be seasonal on those bodies, but it is not known, and the widespread warming trend begs questioning a common cause.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:25 am
-I just compiled the code and ran what was leaked, wow – yeah it makes a difference — the trick really does make it look like things are warming up vs the “untricked” version which shows a downward trend.
Ah, sounds like the old mathematical trick where, depending on the way you arrange the terms, you can make infinite series converge or diverge. Seems the warmers are up to speed on their data doctoring.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Artaban, you are off topic. The topic here is how the stolen emails PROVE all the data is fake.
The stolen emails do not discuss the temperature on Mars or Triton.
Yours is just the typical, garden variety Apollo Moon Hoax denialist stuff that has nothing to do with stolen emails that PROVE all the the data is fake.
And anyways, how can you trust NASA? They produce a lot of the Earth based data that supposedly is fake. And they deny the Face on Mars !!!
You folks need to keep your stories straight.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Wait up folks. The sky is falling in. No, wait, it’s polar bears. Give me a break. Climate change because of man-made emissions is a hoax and now the world finally has proof. Spin all you please, the emails tell part of the story and the code that explains what numbers were fudged to produce the “right outcome” tells the rest.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:45 am
[excerpt]
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series…to hide the decline [in temperature].”
[end excerpt]
Professor Jones made admission to authoring the email exchanges to the New York Times. The authenticity of the emails are well established and now the fraudulent doctoring of data admitted to in the public record.
Global warming is a stupendous hoax that is intended to serve the sole purpose of ushering in world government and subsequent implementation of harsh eugenics-inspired policies.
Glacial ice cores from the bronze age indicate that global temperatures were 6 degrees higher than present average. Grape vineyards were possible to grown in northern UK isles a thousand years ago but will not grow in that climate region today. The Earth has been much warmer on average in the past – in time periods very much preceding the modern industrial age.
Global warming is purely a political fabrication designed to achieve the goal of erecting a totalitarian style of world government, so that harsh measures can begin to be implemented against people.
John Holdren, Obama’s science czar was a radical Club of Rome eugenics proponent in the ’70s, when he co-authored the infamous Ecoscience. As his dire predictions failed to materialize and he became discredited, he then shifted into “climate change”. Of course the new crusade was crafted as a device to achieve the same policy ends as his book, Ecoscience, outlines. Naturally Holdren has been implicated in these emails as well.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:50 am
no one is saying the emails PROVE everything is fake, harping on that makes you look stupid. they are saying the emails SHOW all is not right in the AGW camp. unlike the AGW camp, the skeptics or deniers or whatever are not compelled to act as one single unified voice. thats is what the AGW camp does because they have too.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Chris, thanks for clearing it up for folks in the middle, but you’ll never reach the true (un)believers. I’m sure you’re aware of the study where conservatives were presented with irrefutable evidence against their various false beliefs, and they only became more entrenched. These people are not amenable to reason.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:29 am
I cant get this image out of my head. Al gore is sitting on a recliner right now, a very stiff drink in one hand and he is just staring at the wall.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Global warming is purely a political fabrication designed to achieve the goal of erecting a totalitarian style of world government, so that harsh measures can begin to be implemented against people.
As opposed to harsh measures against polliwogs, which the snakes have already implemented.
You folks make creationists look intelligent.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Artaban @ 262
Are you claiming that a 2 deg C increase on Triton is due to increase in solar flux as well
as a .65 deg C increase on Mars?
Triton orbits Neptune 30.1 AU from the Sun whereas Mars is 1.52 AU – 19.8 times closer. It receives 392 times more watts per square meter of solar radiation (inverse square law)! Any variations in solar flux that would cause a 2 degree rise on Triton would cause absolutely enormous effects on Mars which you’re saying is experiencing less of an increase?!
November 25th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Doug@264
Sorry, I was responding to the ‘IT’S THE SUN” claims earlier in the thread. I hope you don’t mind – but I’ll try and continue engaging Artaban for a bit.
Artaban@262
You say:
Eamon, as you probably well know, our ability to monitor temperature changes on “ALL bodies of the solar system” is severely limited by the number of probes out there.
Actually, what I know are that we can measure temperatures on the planets using ground-based and space-based telescopes.
“However, let me respond to your query with the data we do have:
1. Triton (largest moon of Neptune) experienced a 2 degree C increase from 1995 to 1997 (you’ll note this is more extreme than that experienced on Earth over the last 50 years). [Elliot, J. L., et al., 1998, "Global warming on Triton," Nature, 393:765-767. ]“
And the researchers say: “Our result suggests that the permanent polar caps on Triton play a dominant role in regulating seasonal changes. Similar processes should also be active on Pluto”.
No word about the sun…and also – have you considered that if the sun was really responsible for a 2 degree temperature rise on a moon of Neptune that the Earth would be toast? We are sooo much closer to the sun.
“2. Mars; “From observed albedo changes they have used models to estimate a global annual air temperature increase of 0.65° C.” [Fenton, L. K., P. E. Geissler, and R. M. Haberle, 2006, "Global warming on Mars," AGU Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #P23A-0047.] If the climate-forcing is entirely albedo driven (doubtful), that still begs to the question as to how much albedo changes (through dust kicked up by seismic, weather, other natural activity) is influencing our own.
Have you even looked at the paper? They conclude:
“Our results suggest that documented albedo changes contribute to recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.”
“3. Pluto has experienced warming beyond it’s perihelion and an increase in atmospheric pressure (which, as you know, can happen when frozen elements are warmed and enter the atmosphere), for reasons which as yet stand as unknown/unverified.”
See the first paper you quoted.
“Other observed evidence of warming/increase in atmospheric pressure include Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. There is speculation changes may be seasonal on those bodies, but it is not known, and the widespread warming trend begs questioning a common cause.”
Uranus? See “Uranus after Solstice: Results from the 1998 November 6 Occultation” by Young et al. They say:
“The secular increase in temperature seen during the period 1977–1983 has reversed”.
Jupiter’s internal heat contributes to it’s warming noticably.
Neptune: see “The nature of Neptune’s increasing brightness: evidence for a seasonal response” by L.A. Sromovsky et al. They say:
“When 467-nm HST observations from 1994 to 2002 are added to the 472-nm ground-based results of Lockwood and Thompson (2002, Icarus 56, 37–51), the combined disk-averaged variation from 1972 to 2002 is consistent with a simple seasonal mode”.
All explained without need for solar irradiance increases – which is handy, as there’s been no increase in solar irradiance since satellite records began.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The warmers here erect straw men, shoot them down and then dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a paranoid denier. They need to take a good look at themselves.
Nobody is saying that the emails DISPROVE global warming. But if you really cannot at least admit that the emails have seriously dented the credibility of the warming crowd, without a doubt you have your head stuck deep inside so far you can bite your tongue
November 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Chris Mooney wrote:
Those of us who think this is all smoke and no fire are starting from the following position: There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused. So then we pose the following question: What would it take for “ClimateGate” to significantly weaken this body of evidence in a serious way?
If the emails demonstrated an orchestrated conspiracy among several major institutions to promote intentionally phony science, then that would constitute a major blow against AGW.
So far, they certainly don’t demonstrate such a massive conspiracy. They do, however, demonstrate scientific fraud and biased research. The scientists should be professionally disciplined and CRU’s reputation should suffer in the climate science community.
Personally, I think that AGW is probably real. But I’m very skeptical of the doomsday predictions related to it, given the past history of environmental activists, including those with Ph.Ds, painting apocalyptic scenarios that have never come true (e.g. population bomb, global cooling). I’m not convinced that AGW is a serious crisis.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:16 am
DrRob:
Can the data be collected publically or is the data collected available publically?
Are you familiar with how most scientific journals operate? Most now require you to post your raw datasets online, in entirety, when your article is published – freely accessible to the public, total transparency. This is true of climate science, as well.
A lot of the denialists here seem to think that science is a shady enterprise where scientists hoarde their data. This isn’t true. If you don’t believe me, then how to skeptics get hold of the published datasets they graph, tweak, and pore over on skeptic websites? Either they’re stealing them, or they’re publically available.
Thinking that data are hidden and locked away in a vault after publciation shows a massive misunderstanding of science.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Randomizer,
Actually, if you read all 272 comments above you, many of the commenters are, in fact, saying that the emails and the code hacked with them do indeed disprove global warming because they are “evidence” of a conspriacy (!) to manipulate data and suppress scientific work.
And I will be the first to agree with you that credability is dented. But it’s only dented in so far as the snarky, often theatrical nature of academic discourse is taken seriously by non-academics. I grew up the son of a university professor (in history), and I can tell you that this is how academics talk, write, etc. I can also tell you that they have a tin ear to the realworld implications of that style of communication.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Best comment yet, Philip H.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Philip H., good. I am not saying the emails disprove warming but I think they do reveal the nitty gritty behind the more sanitized reports that appear in the pronouncements of bodies like the IPCC. I think the public deserves to at least know about these details, doubts and deliberations, and I really think the scientists who are concerned now have a big obligation to explain this at length.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The scientists need to pen detailed explanations of what they exactly meant when they said what they said in these emails. They owe this to the public. If they don’t do this they are going to massively fan the denier flames.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Au contraire my fine weather friends. It would appear that the BURDEN OF PROOF still lies upon the AGW Zealot Carbon Fraud crowd, Mr Mooney. This article demonstrates with SCIENCE (rather than opinion) how the IPCC scientists engaged in CLEAR, UNDENIABLE fraud to cook their AGW supporting data.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590
Now Mooney attempts to argue that there is a mountain of AGW supporting evidence even when we disregard the work provided by these esteemed IPCC scientists. Well, if that is so why on Earth did these IPCC scientists feel obliged to cook the data in the first place?
If we are truly “scientists” then can we please stop trying to bury our heads in the sand on this issue? This is DEADLY SERIOUS business. We all want to do what is best for the Earth but without scientific clarity free of frauds and scams we are simply promoting the wrong solutions for the wrong problems when there are very real environmental issues that must be addressed.
AGW is dead. Let’s move on.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Now Mooney attempts to argue that there is a mountain of AGW supporting evidence even when we disregard the work provided by these esteemed IPCC scientists.
Umm…that’s because there is a “mountain of AGW supporting evidence” out there – two decades and 1000s of publications’ worth of evidence – all written, reviewed, and published by people independent of anyone named in “climateGate” that still backs up AGW.
God Help Us, indeed. From your ignorance.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The scientists need to pen detailed explanations of what they exactly meant when they said what they said in these emails. They owe this to the public. If they don’t do this they are going to massively fan the denier flames.
I guess this means Randomizer has missed the 10 or so news articles now where the scientists in question are interviewed and discuss at length what was said in the emails.
They don’t publish those on the denialist blogs, though, so no doubt you’ve missed them.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:42 am
bilbo, why is it that the data these IPCC “scientists” found necessary to manipulate contradict the theory of AGW? Isn’t that a slight problem? Have you bothered to read Ian Plimer’s book or any of the other excellent Nazi climate denialist publications? AGW really is a lot of hot air and it’s really quite embarassing. Go find another worthless religion to follow while the rest of us deal with real issues. I hear that Scientology is quite popular these days and it’s even “scientific”, Mr Mooney.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I looked through the data and the methods and it appears to me that there were some questionable practices that these scientists were doing:
a) with respect to the temperature graph to “hide the decline” it appears that they were violating several mathematical principles, foremost above them hey were mixing ordinal and nominal number systems. Just because you correlate an ordinal system in tree rings to a nominal looking system does not mean you can do anything mathematical with it. I think there are deep flaws by these guys in mixing the two number systems when they were mixing data from different sources. It appears to me that they were not careful with their mathematics. People need to look at these kinds of things very carefully.
b) It would be much better if they just showed us the number set for tree rings, the number sets for meteorolgical stations, and other data sources and graphed them individually versus making “judgement” calls to make the results fit with what they wanted.
c) It would be great if they had been open with their raw data (there are records in the e-mails where they destroyed data and refused to provide FOIA information requests)
d) It would be great if they didn’t take guesses at adjusting temperature data (the e-mails shows that they this)
@bilbo
Now you’re attacking my credentials because you can’t attack the merits of the argument – no more 2nd grade comments bilbo please. How about if you post your credentials? I assure you mine are impeccable.
Please focus on the e-mails and their content.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Bilbo, as far as I know the scientists have not made a public statement in a major paper. I think they should to make the denialists shut up.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:50 am
According to CRU’s own site, the IPCC was set up “under the United Nations Framework (later the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) and led to assessments being produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. CRU staff have been heavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size of an institution (see IPCC AR4 Authors).”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/ar4authors.htm
Also, CRU is one of the two primary sets of data used by IPCC. The other is GISS, run by NASA.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
JustAnonymous:
I’m “attacking your credentials” because you came into this comment thread acting as if you were a peer-reviewer for Nature in 1998…except you’re only regurgitating points that were brought up in the original Mann paper 11 years ago and displaying a quite half-assed knowledge not just of climate science but of science, in general (See your last post, for example. It reads like a college freshman’s response when asked to give a mock peer review: lots of intellectual diction but zero substance.)
I’d be willing to put 20 bucks in a bet that you wrote that with either a Wikipedia/Google page up in your browser window or a denialist blog. Probably both.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Bilbo, as far as I know the scientists have not made a public statement in a major paper. I think they should to make the denialists shut up.
That’s a hilarious statement, seeing as how two decades of over 1000 independent, peer-reviewed articles reinforcing AGW have not made the denailists “shut up.”
November 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
@bilbo
That’s the point bilbo, the e-mails realed show that these people were manipulating the peer review process to only accept papers that supported their viewpoints.
Those 1,000 independent and supposedly peer reviewed papers need to be revisited to make sure they weren’t tainted.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
@ bilbo
You continue to attack me personally and you refuse to look at the e-mails. Bilbo you’re being rude, impolite, a bully, and just plain uncivilized. It’s very hard to conduct a debate with someone like you because you resort to personal attacks and marginalization.
Please, attack the e-mails, defend the e-mails. I’m not questioning who you are except for reciprocating the request you made.
Btw, Wikipedia is not really a reliable source.
Can you defend the ordinal nominal problem that I highlight in the hockey stick charts? and the hide the decline methods.
Please bilbo, be civilized – this is not 2nd grade.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@bilbo
The way you talk, you’re a climate scienctist. Are you? Is that a prerequsite for posting here?
You are horrendously out of line Bilbo — I respectfully request that you be civil.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Eamon, thank you very much for proving my point that we don’t know what is causing the warming on these other planets. People are drawing inferences from data (concerning causality) that cannot truly be drawn–and then basing expensive policy decisions upon it. Take for example, what you added in post #272
“And the researchers say: ‘Our result SUGGESTS that the permanent polar caps on Triton play a DOMINANT role in regulating seasonal changes. SIMILAR processes SHOULD also be active on Pluto’.”
Now this is good scientific writing, because it doesn’t claim to know more than the data found. Notice the words I put in all caps. In two sentences, we see the researchers admit there may be variables they’re unaware of influencing the situation (SUGGESTS), that there are multiple factors at work, and the one they examined seems to be DOMINANT (but not the exclusive/only influence), and that SIMILAR (but perhaps not identical) processes SHOULD (but might not) be active on Pluto.
Why are they using so many words in such a short span to identify uncertainty? Because they are being honest, and acknowledging how little of the data they actually have.
The Mars study uses some of the same words. And you seem to have missed/ignored my point that “If the climate-forcing is entirely albedo driven (doubtful), that still begs to the question as to how much albedo changes (through dust kicked up by seismic, weather, other natural activity) is influencing our own [climate].”
To fixate on any one variable (CO2) when there are so many significant factors (albedo being one of many) to consider is, well, unscientific.
Eamon: “Actually, what I know are that we can measure temperatures on the planets using ground-based and space-based telescopes.”
You’re right, but be cognizant that measuring the temperature and determining the cause for changes in it are two entirely different things. We DON’T have any instruments in those atmospheres to measure the PPM of any gasses, nor do we have a means for measuring most volcanic activity (one of the prime sources of CO2 and other gaseous influences on our own environment).
Finally, you claim “there’s been no increase in solar irradiance since satellite records began.”
You are quite simply wrong. Not only are there periodic fluctuations (about .1% during the roughly 11 year sunspot cycles), but there are aperiodic fluctuations. Even such a seemingly small change in irradiance has been linked with significant temperature variation on earth (do some reading about the Maunder Minimun and Little Ice Age sometime).
To quote one study: “One reconstruction from the ACRIM data show a 0.04% per decade trend of increased solar output between solar minima over the short span of the data set.”
Now when we talk about solar irradiance, we also have to talk about things that limit or enhance its effects, like the magnetosphere and albedo.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
@bilbo
The tone of your posts to me and to others here is very similar to the tone that Paul Jones of the CRU took against anyone that asked him any questions, challenged him, or asked from anything of him.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I think that a first-step supporters and advocates should take, is to refuse to adopt and relegate the framing of this issue by the denialists. Allowing “climategate” and similar such identification to become the de rigueur labelling of crimes and violations that are largely being minimized and overlooked in this event, is a mistake that should be avoided.
TS
November 25th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If calling you “silly” and claiming you have “zero substance” in your arguments (you’ve proven to be guilty on both those counts) is not being civil and is attacking you personally, you have apparently spent very little time on the Interwebs. All of this lecture to me about being civil, of course, is coming from the same JustAnonymous who spent the first part of this comment thread calling political liberals “dictators” and calling people “religious fanatics.” Oh, the irony! It’s like getting told about how reprehensible violence is by an axe murderer.
With regards to “Please, attack the e-mails, defend the e-mails,” I have an addition to make:
Read the emails, then read the scientific papers that the emails are about, and THEN attack the emails/defend the emails.
All you’re doing is bringing up points that were discussed by the authors of the Mann et al. paper 11 years ago when it was first published. In other words, you’re arguing old points that have already argued.
Get yourself up-to-date on climate science (not just the two or three papers your Silly Little Denialist friends claim are all that climate science is), and THEN you can come back and be expected to be treated like an adult.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Yes calling us
silly little deniers
“get yourself up to date”
“treated like an adult”
PLEASE BILBO — I’m not attacking you why do you insist on making this personal. It’s just about a set of e-mails released. Lets get to the bottom of the meat of the issue.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Then you can easily respond to this statement, JA (which, conveniently, you avoided acknowledging):
“With regards to “Please, attack the e-mails, defend the e-mails,” I have an addition to make (in italics):
Read the emails, then read the scientific papers that the emails are about, and THEN attack the emails/defend the emails.
All you’re doing is bringing up points that were discussed by the authors of the Mann et al. paper 11 years ago when it was first published. In other words, you’re arguing old points that have already argued.”
November 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
…and yes, JA, if you fail to read the very papers you’re trying to dismantle, then you are, in reality, being a Silly Little Denialist. Prove me wrong.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@Bilbo
The fact that someone argued a point on a paper 10 years ago does not mean that it is no longer subject to contestation — quite the contrary, as new evidence arises and understandings change, it is entirely appropriate to keep challenging. It’s how science works. Few things in science are ever settled definitely.
The questions and points asked here and challenged here are proper especially those pertaining to science, ethics, law etc.
You won’t hear it though — you are dead set on supporting your position and appear to only be interested in inciting here.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@bilbo
Yet again — you just attack without knowing anything about me. you’re rude, crude, and behave like a 2nd grader. You’ve proven what you are already.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
@bilbo
Prove that you have an open mind, go download the e-mails that were leaked and the files and compile the code, put the numbers in excel and run them. It’s not that hard – its quite simple actually – hey even I can do it.
Approach this from an open mind.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The fact that someone argued a point on a paper 10 years ago does not mean that it is no longer subject to contestation
…but claiming that they never mentioned it, and that their paper falls apart based on it, displays quite a bit of ignorance, doesn’t it? In fact, that could be considered a lie in Reality World, where the rest of us live.
Although you appeared on this thread under the guise of scientific objectivity, JA, you’ve quickly been exposed as just another Silly Little Denialist, what with you calling liberals “dictators,” those who accept a role of humans in climate change “religious fanatics,” and rants about liberal politics.
Objectivity, indeed. *facedesk*
(But I’m just an “uncivil” “third-grader,” so what should I know???)
November 25th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@bilbo
Civil adults should be able to post here without them being demeaned or attacked and given labels like “silly little deniers”
I welcome comments from everyone who is civil be you a student, teacher, professional, climatologist, physicist etc.
Bilbo seeks to confuse the issue, he wants only climatologists to come into this forum yet he refuses to share who he is and what his credentials are.
He routinely degenerates into petty attacks and refuese to look at the evidence released in the 160MB of leaks. he has himself acknowledged that he has not read those files yet he demands that I read every climatology paper before posting here. It’s a double standard. Here is here to incite, and distract us from this important topic.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Prove that you have an open mind, go download the e-mails that were leaked and the files and compile the code, put the numbers in excel and run them.
…and if there was any doubt that JA had an elementary grasp of how science works, the fact that he thinks he can run a multivariate, global climate model in Microsoft Excel on his home computer settles that.
Don’t you think that, if climate science were that easily debunked, the people screaming about it wouldn’t be just those on ultraconservative skeptic blogs?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
JA, you said:
He (Bilbo) routinely degenerates into petty attacks and refuese to look at the evidence released in the 160MB of leaks. he has himself acknowledged that he has not read those files
I “acknowledged” that has not read them? Really?
Then how do you explain this statement, from yours truly, from this very blog?
“Just spent quite a bit of time browsing through all those “damning” files. I don’t see anything that could serve as a “death blow” to climate science as a whole, outside of a handful of researchers out of a field of hundreds.”
That’s OK, though, JA. One of the hallmarks of a science denialist is that they attribute stances to their opponents that the opponents have never claimed to hold. In fact, it’s one of the first tactics used by a denialist after they’ve been exposed to be one.
So keep going. You’re teaching a textbook class on how to be a Silly Little Denialist (complete with the lectures about civility).
November 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@ bilbo
Yet more attacks from you.
I never said I ran it on my laptop bilbo. I have two, 4 cpu quad core, 32gb ram machines running with 8TB RAID 5 running in my basement. I’m kindof a technology expert. However I didn’t say I ran a multivariate (big word there wow), global climate model.
By the way, the CRU developer’s notes in the code say that the global climate data was a complete mess and that he had trouble making heads or tails of it. He wrote these things in the e-mails. SO I guess that I’m not the only one scratching their head on how these models show what they show.
BTW, there’s nothing wrong with using Excel for graphing etc. I do compile C code for speed but in today’s world of super fast CPUs, literally I have 100mips on each of my servers — just as an fyi, that’s more processing power than what was available in cray computers from a decade ago. SO YES I CAN RUN HARD MATH ON MY MACHINES, especially if I use compiled C code. Not that I did, I merely graphed the numbers that were already compiled and I got a graph that doesn’t show the hockey stick.
The problem here is that we hide behind multivariate statistics, stochastic methods, and a plethora of other big words that just serve to scare average people …. ooooooooooooooh that must be hard “multivariate” wow, geeze, those guys must be smart!
If I see that they’re violating simple mathematical rules, I really can’t trust them with multivariate analysis.
BTW, BILBO this is not about debunking climate science. I could care less. I want the data to be right, I want them to be rigorous and let the data show whatever it does. If it’s getting HOT, fine. If it’s getting COLD fine. Just don’t lie to me with big words.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
However I didn’t say I ran a multivariate (big word there wow), global climate model
SO YES I CAN RUN HARD MATH ON MY MACHINES
If “multivariate” is a “big word there wow” to you, then I hate to break it you – you aren’t running “hard math” on your machines.
The problem here is that we hide behind multivariate statistics, stochastic methods, and a plethora of other big words that just serve to scare average people …. ooooooooooooooh that must be hard “multivariate” wow, geeze, those guys must be smart!
If that’s a problem to you, I can’t imagine how frightening it must be to take medications, use your computers, and/or drive a car, seeing as how the scientific foundations for those are analyzed and tested by people “hiding behind…big words that just serve to scare average people.”
There’s an obvious label to give someone who says all of these things. I sohuldn’t have to repeat it at this point.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@bilbo
DO YOU HAVE A PHD IN CLIMATOLOGY?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Let’s see….if I say I do have a Ph.D. in Climatology, I’ll get branded a liberal hoax-monger and a member of the conspiracy.
If I say I don’t, then I’ll get told I have no business talking about climate science. This will, ironically, be coming from someone who has spent the better part of 200 comments attempting to talk climate science and has just admitted to being an “average person.”
Forgive me for seeing the conundrum here. I’ve done enough talking to denialists to know that this is how the character assassination cookie crumbles.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@bilbo
I’m just asking, you seem to berate and belittle everyone here. What is your PhD in?
November 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@bilbo
Also, please point me to a handful of your published papers in climatology – I’d like to read them. I love to read.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
JA,
I have a comment in moderation that will address your manically-repeated charges nicely.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
In the meantime, let us have your climatology credentials, especially since you’ve been talking about the science for the past 200 comments….
November 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
NO BILBO, you’re the one making the attacks and accussations in the forum against all of us,
please SIR, your credentials now and list of published documentation in the climate field.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You claim that we’re all lay people and that we’re not qualified to comment. Therefore, ergo sum, you must mean that you’re a PhD in climatology and have volumous publishings in the field that are peer – reviewed (hopefully rigorously).
Please sir, I ask again, your credentials and list of published work that qualifies you to tear us down, demean us, belittle us, marginalize us, and otherwise treat us uncivily over this matter of 160MB of leaked files from the CRU.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Wow, JA, that’s quite the anger! Where have I seen that before??
Oh yes, I remember now! That’s the typical anger one gets when one engages in debate with a Silly Little Denialist and backs them into a corner.
Your transition from “innocent, objective, concerned scientist” to raving lunatic denialist seems to be nearing completion. Keep it up – it’s doing wonders for your credibility…
November 25th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
[...] Mooney at the Intersection observes that these emails don’t actually imply anything substantive about climate science: Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
No anger bilbo, my keyboard get’s stuck sometimes.
You claim that we’re not qualified to write here if we don’t have climatology PhDs.
Post yours please as well as list of publishings.
WE”RE WAITING (DARN STUCK KEYS AGAIN)
November 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@bilbo
WAITING — SIR CREDENTIALS AND LIST OF PUBLISHINGS PLEASE
November 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I think we’ve determined that bilbo is not a PhD climatologist — that’s ok, you can still post Bilbo, but that means that everyone who is not a climatologist can also post in this forum.
Moreso, everyone should be able to post without being attacked with silly titles.
Bilbo, think you can agree to be civil?
November 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
bilbo is irrelevant.
What is really disturbing and should serve as a lesson to all is how controlled the media is. Look at CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. Not a single mention of Climategate but plenty of coverage of the upcoming Copenhagen summit. We are fighting an information war. There’s nothing scientific about it. Stifle dissent, push the agenda, to hell with the science. That’s the way these climate fanatics like bilbo and Mooney operate.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@GiveMeA Break
I agree it is very interesting that CNN, ABC< CBS < NBC return zero results when you query them on climategate.
what you write it true GiveMeABreak, we are fighting an information war. It’s sad.
Copernicus won against the church though, we can only hope that science will somehow prevail but it’s going to take a lot of us asking hard questions.
I don’t care if climate change is real or not but I do care that I’m not taxed on bogus science. These academic institutions and the IPCC should be 1000% above reproach and what these 160MB prove is that they’re not. Moreso the fact that the main stream media is not reporting is very troubling.
I never have believed in conspiracies but when you don’t see a single mention of climategate in the media, it is very troubling.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Nobody’s reporting on this because it’s a complete non-issue.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
@bob
We respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. This is a significant issue with thousands and thousands of articles on it on the internet.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
bob, correction:
AGW is a complete non-issue.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
[...] years on record have been in the past 13. Never mind the fact the whole scandal is overblown and doesn’t actually discredit any real science that’s been done by countless climatologists working the world [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Be careful, Bob: talk too much and JA and GMB will be telling you that math scares them.
Only us silly “climate fanatics” would be dumb enough to trust fancy numbers.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
What is really disturbing and should serve as a lesson to all is how controlled the media is. Look at CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. Not a single mention of Climategate but plenty of coverage of the upcoming Copenhagen summit
Actually, I saw a clip on CNN earlier about it. They just didn’t treat it as the Gospel Truth because they’re good journalists and said that it’s impossible to vet what is true outside of what individual scientists have already confirmed.
So much for your liberal media bias, boys.
Silly Little Denialists. I’m so glad to see the non-blog parts of the world are treating this as what it is: much ado about nothing.
(Here comes the stuttering rebuke about me “just not getting it.”)
November 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@ bilbo
yet another baseless attack and marginalization attempt by bilbo who demands that we present out academic credentials to post but who refuses to provide his.
Really bilbo CNN comment, post a link please. It would be nice to see. I’m still waiting for your PHD credentials and publishings list so I guess I’ll have to wait for the CNN link to.
Oh and yet another “silly little denialist” slam at anyone who has the audacity to “QUESTION” which is what scientists are supposed to do.
Feels lik I’m Copernicus and Bilbo is some catholic priest at the Vatican. Thank goodness he can’t drive nails through my hands, I have a feeling he would.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
you can still post Bilbo, but that means that everyone who is not a climatologist can also post in this forum.
I never said you could post, Silly Little Denialist. I just pointed out your piss-poor understanding of basic science, your willful ignorance of the knowledge that exists regarding AGW, and your silly, stupid extrapolations of what a handful of scientists said to a cadre of thousands. I also chastised your evasion of answer any of the substantial questions that I posed to you – which, might I add, is the hallmark of a science denialist.
You can post all you want – it’s a free forum. But if you bring piss-poor arguments to the table, expect to get called out them, and don’t whine about it when you are. If you can’t stand the heat, take your Silly Little Denialism elsewhere. There are plenty of blogs that need the heat, anyway – they think we’re headed into another ice age, after all….
November 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
[...] Mooney at the Intersection observes that these emails don’t actually imply anything substantive about climate science: Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
bilbo, you are so dishonest it makes me laugh. Anyone can go to cnn.com and search for climategate : 0 results. Then search for “climate change” : 2180 results. Then search for octomom: 51 results. Or how about “balloon boy”: 179 results.
Yeah, there’s no bias there whatsoever.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
yet another baseless attack and marginalization attempt by bilbo
Then in the very same comment…
Feels lik I’m Copernicus and Bilbo is some catholic priest at the Vatican. Thank goodness he can’t drive nails through my hands, I have a feeling he would.
Oh how I love the unknowing hypocrisy of the petty and simpleminded.
You Silly Little Denialist, you.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
bilbo
you are so arrogant. I refuse to leave this forum only because I don’t want to give you the last word. I’ll stay on and counter you move for move.
Keep up your arrogance, it does nothing to me and shows who you really are.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
@bilbo
and yes, you are irrelevant because you refuse to read and see what is plainly in the e-mails and files released.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Anyone can go to cnn.com and search for climategate : 0 results. Then search for “climate change” : 2180 results
Then try harder, idiot. This one’s already been posted for a day:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/
Give me a break, indeed. I’m starting to think you’re really a middle schooler…
November 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
what will be next
silly little denialist coment from bilbo?
will it be some other petty libel.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
bilbo: I refuse to leave this forum only because I don’t want to give you the last word. I’ll stay on and counter you move for move.
If you’ve crushed me as badly as you claim, JA, then why would you even need the last word?
Stupid Little Denialist.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I do wish we could discuss the e-mails and files versus this degeneration that bilbo has taken us down.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I do wish we could discuss the e-mails and files versus this degeneration that bilbo has taken us down.
If I recall correctly, JA, our brief discussion of the “emails and files” ended with you saying that: 1.) math is an evil tool used by scientists to distort the public’s minds, and 2.) You can replicate any of the published climate science that’s ever been done in the history of the field in Microsoft Excel.
And you wonder why I’m not discussing them further with you? Riiiiight.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Bilbo
You say I wrote the following, “1.) math is an evil tool used by scientists to distort the public’s minds, and 2.) You can replicate any of the published climate science that’s ever been done in the history of the field in Microsoft Excel. ”
Yet you will NEVER be able to substantiate that I wrote that because I never wrote that. That’s not even a paraphrase.
Is this how you do climate science? when you don’t like what someone else observes, you change it?
November 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
@bilbo
I might say that you are making a spectacle of yourself by trying to twist what I wrote — others in the forum can take a look you know. It’s not too hard to reference my exact words.
You are twisting bilbo — why don’t you debate the merits of the matter?
Perhaps because the evidence is damning
Your name isn’t Jones is it? your actions seem like something that he’d do.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Bilbo
You say I wrote the following, “1.) math is an evil tool used by scientists to distort the public’s minds, and 2.) You can replicate any of the published climate science that’s ever been done in the history of the field in Microsoft Excel. ”
Yet you will NEVER be able to substantiate that I wrote that because I never wrote that. That’s not even a paraphrase.
Point 1: “The problem here is that they (scientists) hide behind multivariate statistics, stochastic methods, and a plethora of other big words that just serve to scare average people…don’t lie to me with your big words.” (Today, 1:22 pm)
Point 2: “Prove that you have an open mind, go download the e-mails that were leaked and the files and compile the code, put the numbers in excel and run them….BTW, there’s nothing wrong with using Excel (to replicate climate science)” (Today, 1:10 pm)
I will also note that after you were called out for each of these silly statements, you quickly stopped discussing them.
Now deny away!
November 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@bilbo what I wrote was a far cry from how you twisted it and you know it.
how were my comments silly?
November 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
you’re uncivil bilbo – you and I are done here. I won’t respond to you nor address you. bye
November 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Godd riddance, Little Denialist.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I’m glad to be rid of bilbo — I didn’t know him long but wow he was a very angry person who just had to insult and insult anyone who didn’t see things his way.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Came to Wyoming in the 70′s three times to work four summers and a winter on production oil rigs. Blue skies were mindblowing; hot dry summer heat, cooled off at night.
Came back once to work in the 80′s, once for research. Back in 2000 for elk hunting near cody, then in 2004 and 2005.
In this century, in contrast to the dry, clear climate, was struck how similar to East Coast climate Wyoming had become. Much more humid, skies grey and hazy similar to New York metro area, or Chicago. Now, local folks use air conditioners at night; never had to thirty or so years ago.
Some anectdotal commentary blames the Trona mines and coal plants in the south west (and north east?) of the state, as well as gas drilling venting. ( Wonder if Denver, LA, even China contributes their eastward blowing smog.)
This year the rancher near our camp said the whole top of the mountain was full of dead pine trees from the pine beetles “which used to be killed off by a month of below zero weather in the winter, but we don’t see that anymore. When you come back next time, there won’t be any trees up here. Lightning will start the fire and nothing will be able to stop it”.
I’m not a climatologist, but I sure as heck can remember clear summer skies in Wyoming.
By the way, it was beautiful coming over the pass from Buffalo to Ten Sleep a week and a half ago….could see the Wind Rivers, the mountains out west by Yellowstone. Incredibly beautiful. But could see nothing of the sort in the summer of 2005.
Just haze.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
@bilbo
Wow,
I am amazed at how you continuously revert to such demeaning personal insults. I’m afraid that you’re not making it clearer for me at all.. In fact you have just pushed me one step closer to the “silly little denialist” camp, as you would seemingly judge anyone who dares to question.
Please be off, and in your own words then, “Godd riddance”.
Caleb
November 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
[...] discredit global warming and climate change, when as other more credible people show, they clearly don’t do that. Tags: climate change, climate change deniers, climate change skeptics, Colby Cosh, global [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I’m always amazed at people who think we can stop climate change and that it’s not a dynamic system that has gone on for billions of years with much larger swings than we currently see. Carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were much higher during the Cretaceous Period, that’s the only way you can get the vegetation to support animals the size of dinosaurs. And besides, when the carbon dioxide levels get high enough, plant growth will increase significantly and begin to absorb the higher levels. That’s what happened in the Carboniferous Period when huge carbon sinks occurred (coal). We’re just in an Interglacial Period. Mother Earth has always taken care of herself and we’ll cycle back the other way eventually. That’s when things will begin to fall apart, during the next Ice Age.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
If you want to know what this whole carbon tax movement is all about you need to watch this fine film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
HINT: It’s about control.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Caleb,
Hopefully you noticed that my incivility was not a one-way street (i.e. my labeling as a “liberal dictator,” “religous fanatic,” etc. etc. etc. amen).
I am curious, however, as to one point: name one thing that I said about the nature of climate science (discrediting incivility) that you find to be categorically false. I’ll make a one-time promise that I’ll be civil with you.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Bilbo is an obnoxious, caustic little bugger…but I’ve gotta agree with him. After looking back through anonymous’s multiple postings, the Hobbit had him nailed time and time again, while anonymous played the innocent victim card without giving any substantial response. Some of the vicitmizing was justified, however.
I’ve noticed that about climate skeptics. They bombard forums and blogs with rhetoric and vitriol, wait to be challenged, and feign innocence and being offended when they get called out. And you’ll never, ever get a response when you challenge a climate skeptic to provide specifics of their argument. That has held true here, not just with anonymous but with everyone else.
I’ve begun to think there’s a class you can take at how to evade serious discussion when you’re a climate skeptic. After reading these comments, I feel more confident than ever about that…
November 25th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
-That’s a hilarious statement, seeing as how two decades of over 1000 independent, peer-reviewed articles reinforcing AGW have not made the denailists “shut up.”
Huh…we are not talking about those 1000 emails. We are talking about the current emails. I think what Jones et al. should do if they are truly interested in scavenging their credibility is to knock on the door of The Guardian or the NYT and hand in a detailed step-by-step explanation of each damning statement in the emails.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
[...] Mooney at the Intersection observes that these emails don’t actually imply anything substantive about climate science: Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@Seminatrix
bilbo never offered anything substantive at all. zero zilch aside from demeaning namecalling.
Are you reading the same threads posted on here?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were much higher during the Cretaceous Period, that’s the only way you can get the vegetation to support animals the size of dinosaurs.
And much of the continental United States was underwater.
You might want to look that up.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
anonymous:
Between some rather vitriolic mush, the Hobbit posed several extremely important points that totally undermined your stance. Like…
1.) you were repeating points that had already been addressed by some authors as if the authors never addressed them
2.) you made the claim that multivariate statistics were useless to climate science (or even science, in general!)
3.) you seemed to be pretty ignorant of what climate science actually says about AGW, versus what the skeptic blogs tell you
4.) you were arguing that you had debunked a major climate study (that involved statistics beyond the capabilities of Excel) using Excel in your basement.
More importantly, you never address any of those points and chose to deflect instead.
To me, this means that you got rightfully called out….and failed in supporting yourself.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@seminatrix
1) does not matter that they were already addressed – those points were addressed from a biased perspective that comes into question with regard to the new e-mails that came out
2) Untrue – you misread – you need to read my posts again. I cannot understand how you misread that point
3) Uhm, right back at you — if you call me ignorant without backing, I throw it back at you.
4) Uhm, I merely posted that I compiled and ran the data that the CRU scientists offere without the “hiding functions” and found not climate increase in the Yamal numbers. I didn’t debunk anything, I just showed that the Yamal numbers aren’t showing any temperature increase.
I’ve just addressed the points sir, what is your response.
I’ve just refuted you and bilbo, please post your own analysis (with citations) if you would please.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:15 am
[...] Intersection takes a different tack to expose how scientificaly irrelevant the emails are in The “ClimateGate” Burden of Proof: Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations [...]
November 27th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Holy crap!
Morons are out in force!
November 27th, 2009 at 7:45 am
The science of global warming has been lost in a disaster movie like plot, of melting ice caps , drowning cities, extreme wheather events, and now a 6c temperature rise .
If one examines the views of the scientists within the emails what I find fascinating is how they have been struggling to show anything dramatic and struggling with the definition of normality. It is not the loose talk, it is what they are saying about the science!
The last ten years of stable temperature gives rise to the question
‘where has global warming gone?’ It is obvious to the reader this kind of observational science with a blinkered view is very problematic.
The thing I feel we can most most certain of is Copenhagen and atemepts to reduce man made CO2 will cost and cause more hardship than the climate.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Artaban@292,
There are three points about your most recent comments on the Trition paper:
1) You suggest it isn’t very conclusive – so then why your reliance upon it @262?
2) Related to point 1, you now engage in moving the goalposts – switching from an assertion that the sun is behind warming on Triton to a position that the data is not reliable.
3) You do not seem to have much experience of Scientific English. Scientists are aware that developments may supersede their research, or that hidden factors may invalidate their conclusions – so they use cautious language. The use of cautious language does not indicate doubt about their actual work.
As for the Mars study – you don’t seem to understand that albedo changes are the major climatic forcing on Mars – albedo changes on Earth are nowhere near as strong a factor in climate. As for fixating on CO2 – the reason for this is because the ‘greenhouse’ effects of CO2 are well understood. It absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth and slows its escape from the Earth – so retaining heat. As for things ‘unscientific’ – don’t you think it’s unscientific to switch goalposts, assert that papers suggest one thing when they actually suggest another, and keep bringing up minor factors as confounding variable when they are actually part of the science? It might also be nice if you read the papers you quote too, for if you had you wouldn’t have made your initial mistake of thinking that investigations of the planets require space probes: the Triton paper you quoted used the Hubble Space Telescope!
Right, on to your statement about instruments for measuring planetary atmosphere. We have them – they’re called spectrometers, attach to a telescope and point. PPM is a bit of a red herring – atmospheric composition is usually given in percentages – not PPM.
As for volcanic activity…where to begin?
* Of the astronomical bodies you mention none have any appreciable volcanic activity. Note I am discounting the water slush volcanos on Triton, for obvous reasons.
* Volcanic activity is not a prime source of CO2. The United States Geological Survey gives the annual CO2 increase due to volcanoes as less than 1 percent of anthropogenic emissions.
To finish, I know of the periodic fluctuations in solar irradiation, my statement ‘no increase in solar irradiance’ refers to the trend, after all you wouldn’t characterize the periodic fluctuations as ‘rapid increases and decreases’ would you? As for the aperiodic fluctuations, you do know that there are problems with the early ACRIM data due to the degradation in orbit of the early sensors? Of the three databases constructed from the ACRIM data, the only one to attempt to correct this, PMOD, (using magnetospheric and other data) shows a slight decline in TSI – which is where I take my ‘no increase statement from’.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Answer this question to determine both your basic knowledge of how science works and your rigor in supposedly debunking the Mann et al. study, anonymous. You said:
I merely posted that I compiled and ran the data that the CRU scientists offere without the “hiding functions” and found not climate increase in the Yamal numbers
So you found “no climate increase in the Yemal numbers?” Then I suppose you won’t mind giving us: a.) the type of statistical test you used to determine whether or not a statistically-significant trend was present in the data after you “ran the code,” and B.) the results of that statistical test (complete with the appropriate test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p-value, please).
Before you get angry that I’m asking you for this information, be aware that this is how basic science works, from climate science to medical science to engineering science – science does not operate by drawing a graph, eyeballing it, and making sweeping conclusions about trends in data.
I’m genuinely interested in what you found, because it could significantly alter what we know about this paper…if you did everything correctly and did not simply eyeball a graph. Take note that I want you to focus on the data here (you yourself have requested this). I will consider a rant about myself, climate science, Michael Mann, an unrelated topic from ClimateGate, or liberals as admission on your part of being a fraud. Please tread carefully.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
[...] But even if the worst and most damning interpretations of these emails are true it still doesn’t substantially weaken the science behind global warming, as Chris Mooney explains: [...]
November 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@seminatrix
No, “science does not operate by drawing a graph, eyeballing it, and making sweeping conclusions about trends in data. ” but in the world of climate scientists at the CRU science works graphing, eyeballing and when the data does not align, then they MANIPULATE the data, THEN graphing it, eyballing it, and then telling the world.
I’ll do one up for you about the data, look at the attached chart.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000590
You eyeball it and challenge its findings with your own data.
Be warned and read carefully, if you don’t come back with something of substance I will take it as admission that YOU are the fraud.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
seminatrix, it seems like JA is sweeping the floor with you. How do you explain the data manipulation undertaken by the CRU, the deletion of data, the bullying, the revising of the peer review process?
Do you have an explanation for that?
November 27th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Anonymous –
No statistics to back up your supposedly “damning” assertion? Come on, man! You had your chance to nail me to the wall and you chose to deflect (as I predicted in my original post!!) instead! That’s fairly pathetic.
I can’t help but label you a fraudulent, lying hack if you’re not willing to back yourself up with data and hard facts.
…but I’ll give you one final chance: prove to all of us that you’re correct here and provide us with 1.) the statistical test you used when running the code from the Mann email, and 2.) the detailed results of that test.
This challenge isn’t about Climategate – it’s about your ability to grasp and argue basic science. Prove me wrong! If you’ve got me backed into a corner, a simple cut-and-paste of those statistics will dispatch me quickly.
A second failure to post them, however, will dispatch yourself.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Justanonymous –
I agree with you about humans not having a role in shaping our climate, and I’m nearly 100% certain that the “scientists” in the ClimateGate scandal are manipulative frauds…..but I want to see the same statistics seminatix wants! All you’ve gotta do is post them and it’ll shut the climate fanatics here up AND give cold hard numbers to put the nails in Mann’s reputation coffin.
Do it! Prove them all wrong with the same statistics they use!
How did you do it? Don’t back off him now!
November 27th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@climatebob
You misunderstand me. I believe humans play a role in shaping the climate.
The point here is not for me to singlehandedly debunk global warming – never my intent at all.
My intent is to have us agree that these scientists in climategate acted unethically, illegally, and in a manner which is inconsitent with scientists.
When these scientists post fraudulent data by their own admission, when they have datasets wtih dummy weather stations, when they destroy data — this forum asks ME to provide HARD data???
Again, I’m not here to debunk global warming or even anthropogenic global warming. I’m here to make sure we agree that what these CRU scientists was just plain wrong.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:43 am
The rules of the game:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf
climate is changing isn’t it?
November 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
What is really disturbing and should serve as a lesson to all is how controlled the media is. Look at CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. Not a single mention of Climategate but plenty of coverage of the upcoming Copenhagen summit
Maybe you should try typing “climate emails hacked” instead.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
And you’ll never, ever get a response when you challenge a climate skeptic to provide specifics of their argument.
That’s true. I just wasted half an hour reading through 300 comments alleging things like:
Wow, that sounds pretty damning. They’ve got thousands of emails, proving fraud and they’ve read them all. Strangely, they never got around to posting any of them after all that effort. Instead I’m supposed to do a 200 Mb core dump of the stolen files and then read them all myself.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
When everyone’s favourite IDiot Michael Egnor gets into the act, you know that the pseudoscience cranks have jumped the shark. I am amused that even with all this email the denialist retards are not able to put the data together and produce as much as a single graph showing anything different from the accepted science. In fact if the denialist retards had half a brain, this email evidence would be unnecessary. The very fact that they have to depend upon moronic quacks like Mike Egnor and the Dishonesty Institute to call climate science into question shows that there is no there there. Chris Mooney, keep u[ the good fight! Sticks and stones may break bones, but morons will kill me with their stupidity.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hmm…I addressed JustAnonymous (post #370) and got a response to that post from climatejunkie (in post #371). (Hint, JA: the name and email you LAST used are saved on the blog. Be more careful next time).
Stop creating alters on here that pretend to back you up, JA. You just got exposed. If you’re having to misrepresent to get your point across, you likely have no point at all.
And that’s disappointing, because I agree with you.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
ClimateGate search volume graphs: have we hit ‘Peak ClimateGate’?
November 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Sorry… link is:
http://catastrophist.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/charts-climategate-search-volumes/
November 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Wow this post section is a sad state of affairs.
Look CO2 does cause an increase in temperatures. No one, not even ‘deniers’. Say otherwise. The one thing that deniers ( which by the way I am one ) claim is the following. The earth has been as warm as it is now in the last 1,000 years. CO2 was not the cause of that. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that prove this point. However, none of them made it into the IPCC report. If you want me to link to paper after paper I will but please if you doubt this look it up yourself I get bored providing links to things especially if after I do I just get called names anyway.
Correlation does not mean Causation. While CO2 causes an increase in temperature it is nearly none existent compared to fore casted warming ( a fraction of a degree is all that CO2 should contribute even at a doubled level of today). All the warming theorized rest in the idea of feedback effects. Now I am not going to get into the whole feedback effect mumbo jumbo, I will simply say this much. It is a theory, one that has been neither proved or disproved. Please stop calling me a denier because I look at a theory and say, “I see what you are saying but it does not look right to me.”
Finally why, oh why, do you defend something like climate change? Climate has always changed, Climate will always change. In the next 100,000 years the world will not remember this. Even if it lasts for a thousand years it will be expunged and forgotten. If man can cause this much change it is a good thing because it places terraforming other worlds within our grasp. However I highly doubt it does. The data is, well to be honest shoddy about CO2 induced warming. Heck to be honest based on the various datasets I have seen the whole concept behind even knowing what the temperature is is in doubt.
P.S. I have made it a habit to collect temperature data for cities and towns that I go into when I can find it. Libraries are a good source though at times it is spotty. They rarely show any warming over the last 100 years and often show a decline. Now this is not scientific in the fact that they are simply isolated areas, but I find no evidence in the raw data that I have seen to support the kinds of claims of catastrophe approaching us. Just an FYI for you all.
Please be skeptical of everything. Do not take what I say without skepticism. Don’t take what others say without skepticism. Being a skeptic simply means that you are not going to allow an appeal to authority to persuade you. Imagine if one of the major scientists did come out and say that he manipulated data. I would contend that even then the theory of feedbacks would not be dead, nor would the chance that CO2 induced warming is going to cause massive amounts of warming in the future. Rather I would still be looking and trying to understand the data.
I am not a flat-earther. The data to prove the science of the globe being a spheroid is pretty solid. CO2 caused warming is not. Again just trying to show that there is a difference in how clear the data is. I have invested 20 years in understanding, analyzing, and collecting data on this. I started out because I was concerned that the Earth could overheat and cause massive devastation… I did not want hat . Time and research has tempered my fears. Please join in the quest to understand the climate, not propagate headlines that sensationalize it.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Wow, this is a liberal group. From this point on, scientists or so-called scientists will no longer be able to hide their information, work and correspondance. This will in fact stop this environmental hoax as is how many of these hoaxes are brought to light in the past putting an end to enviro-terrorism.
Climategate is the beginning of the end for AGW, although by itself will not stop this hoax as there is too much money involved world wide on this which is termed the “greatest scientific swindle of all time”.
AGW supporters, scientists? and others have hurt the institution of science for decades to come all over the pursuit of the dollar and money. Upcoming Congressional Hearings should bring out some interesting facts, under oath, if these so-called scientists have the guts to show up and tell their side of the story. Most likely, most will not show.
Climatology as it is written today or established today is a very new physical science and decades if not longer will have to be studied before they can come up with any practical theory; but the power of the dollar brought them to what we see now.
I see a bunch of criminals acting like scientists, nothing more in the light of Climategate.
Shame on you all.
November 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate…Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :
1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.”
Yes they are. They are one of the two central repositories of ALL global temperature data, and a major provider of the Climate Modelling software.
“2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.
My sense is that the climate skeptic commenters we’re seeing aren’t actually familiar with the vast body of climate science work out there, and don’t realize how most individual studies are little more than a drop in the evidentiary bucket. ..”
In case you haven’t read the literature (and I suspect you haven’t) the models ARE the sum total of evidence about CO2-driven global waeming. There really is nothing else. When individual studies show warming in one spot it is often claimed that this is global warming – but when other studies show cooling this is quietly not published, like Ababneh’s work. Why don’t you quote from one of these other papers in the ‘vast body of climate science’ which does not depend on this data, and yet is evidence of ‘whole world’ warming due to CO2?
November 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
The earth has been as warm as it is now in the last 1,000 years. CO2 was not the cause of that. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that prove this point. However, none of them made it into the IPCC report.
That’s because nobody is arguing that the Earth has never been this hot before. And your argument “C02 was not the cause of that” is akin to arguing that because lightning has started forest fires in the past, dropping lit matches won’t.
If man can cause this much change it is a good thing because it places terraforming other worlds within our grasp.
This planet has already been terraformed and being able to change the climate isn’t the same thing as being able to create a habitable one any more than being able to burn down a house implies that you know how to build one.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Meh,
Science advances when independent scientists are able to replicate the experiment, criticize, disprove, or improve a hypothesis.
AGW skeptics have for long argued that studies cited in IPCC cannot be replicated as the data and models are not available tothird parties.
The leaked emails prove that there was active attempt to hide the data and models.
Disprove that
November 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
[...] even if the particular email in question was a smoking gun, as I have explained, such proof of wrongdoing on the part of one scientist–or a small group–would not [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
If you believe “thousands of scientists believe AGW,” it is also a fact (see fact vs. belief) that thousands of real scientists don’t. Check out the Global Warming Petition Project website.
Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. Persons who have signed include over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D. degrees, 2,500 people with M.D. degrees , and over 7,000 with M.S. degrees. The rest hold at minimum a B.S. degree.
The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Disclosure: I am one of the people who signed the petition disagreeing with the AGW orthodoxy (hoax?) who hold the M.D. degree.
I was Medical Director of a hospital for 5 years. If one of our docs had behaved the way these global warming “scientists” behaved, the emails alone would have been more than sufficient grounds to summarily revoke that physician’s hospital privileges. A report to the State Medical Board would have been likely.
But forget the emails. The computer code is the real travesty. One of my secret vices is programming computers for sport, which I have done since the late 1970′s. FORTRAN, etc. Even a casual glance by anyone with the barest of program knowledge is enough to show the lie these fellows promulgated.
Time to get a clue, folks. They lied and committed fraud. Don’t defend them too loudly, because in the end, the truth will make you look foolish, and complicit.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Climate change arguments aside (I agree with Phil that these emails and such don’t change the overall picture), how could you be for science and not be appalled at CRU behaved? We should be criticizing CRU for holding important data private and unprofessional behavior, and I think Phil is wrong to not be more critical of their process.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
This article is retarded. They admitted the security breach.
It also shows that global warming is not caused by human activity.
Global warming is happening though, like it always has, in cycles.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I admire you Chris. You are sticking with your beliefs when other journalist and bloggers (George Monboit and Jonathan Leake for example) are quickly climbing on the fence.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
[...] even if the sold email in subject was a smoking gun, as I have explained, such explanation of indiscretion on the partial of one scientist–or a small [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I think it is time to take the environmental movement back by focusing on real pollutants. I’ve been warning the Rocky Mountain Institute for years about this. I am now afraid that the resource (not just energy) efficiency revolution that they have done such great work on will be sacrificed at the alter of AWG. People will throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Given the CRU event and the damage it has done please consider the following.
1) Just plainly state that there should be an investigation into data manipulation and that all scientists should be forced to release all data and source code like REAL SCIENTISTS DO. Stop defending criminals by talking about peer review when they were reviewing each other’s papers. You didn’t rig data, collude to prevent others from being published, sabotage other scientists careers. You have to distance yourself immediately from the MBH et al ilk!
2) No longer talk about CO2. It’s dead, proven to be rigged data and continuing to talk about it will only discredit the whole environmental movement.
3) Talk about mercury pollution. 40 tons a year from coal, 35 tons a year from garbage incineration and that is just from North America (and we are not that bad compared to Asia and Africa, scary but true!). Talk about the watershed destruction in coal mining.
4) Offer up a straight forward alternative. Shale gas for the short term renewables for short, medium and long term. The best thing for the environment in the last 50 years is the shale gas technology! Not pretty or renewable but it gives us 50 to 60 years if we decommission all coal & nuke plants and double that if we just phase them out.
So bring the shale gas online as fast as possible and convert/shutdown the coal plants first. With a lot less than 50 years of research and development renewables will be working and cost competitive. 100% reduction in mercury (and 40% reduction in CO2 if you still think that is important).
If we allow stupid LIES and pseudo science like that practiced by the AWG crowd (MBH et al) to be used to tax us then yes we will all be a lot poorer. If we just push the resource efficiency like rmi.org then we will save money.
If we actually force scientists like Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones and the rest of the AWG crowd to make all the data and code publicly available LIKE REAL SCIENTISTS do then we will progress.
From: A real environmentalist!
Cheers
December 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“I am one of the people who signed the petition disagreeing with the AGW orthodoxy (hoax?) who hold the M.D. degree.”
Oh good, I’m glad you climatology experts are getting involved.
Wait, what? You’re not a climatologist? Well go figure, why are we listening to your “dissent” then? I don’t ask my barber to fix my car for the very same reason.
——-
Oh, by the way, JustAnonymous getting caught sock-puppeting? Funniest thing I’ve seen all day. Sure Bilbo’s caustic, but he and Seminatrix have the most sense on this board, hands down. I haven’t really seen anything from the “denialists” that has convinced me in the least of anything they’re saying. Mostly they make me sad.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
How can anyone trust a scientist who would rather commit a crime by deleting data subject to a FOI request then release it for public scrutiny? Why on Earth do such a thing?
There can be only one reason – the data has been tainted and by releasing it he would implicate himself in an even bigger crime.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
There can be only one reason – the data has been tainted and by releasing it he would implicate himself in an even bigger crime.
You’re seriously delusional.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
It is no longer adequate to simply keep repeating the mantra that “we know AGW is real”. We know nothing of the sort.
These crooked scientists have conspired to delete data subject to FOIA requests rather than release it to be independently tested.
They have conspired to manipulate data to “hide the decline” in recent temperatures.
They have conspired to bully and ostracise sceptical scientists.
They have conspired to interfere with the peer review process in order to keep sceptical papers out.
And you still trust these people? And you call the SCEPTICS deniers? In the psychology field we call that “projection”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[...] and science writers like DISCOVER bloggers Phil Plait and Chris Mooney have entered the fray, arguing that although the hacked scientists’ correspondence is less [...]
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Hey Andrew, psychologist call it projection, I call it prostitution. This has dollars written all over it. Millions of dollars in grants funded by the tax payers. It’s great the way science has a way of correcting itself and this is a perfect example. Chris and Phil have allowed the AGW Creed (there I said it, CREED!!!) to cloud their judgement. Phil, who claims, “He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.” has lost credibility as a real scientist and fighter for its misuse.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
You question the burden of proof…
One of the files in the CRU data dump contained the computer code and exposed how they obtained a 1 deg C rise when the globe has been cooling since 1998 and rapidly cooling since 2008.. The primary file in FORTANE used a vector file…
I call it the “MANN CORRECTION VECTOR” It basically removes any cooling and increases the temperature to show warming… Funny thing about using this file it ends with a sharp rise near the end of any data set.
The CRU is tasked with being the Global Climate Archive. so all data that is filtered and placed into this archive through the program is artificially adjusted. THE REPOSITORY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED! The data revised… Every scientist that uses it forward has biased data and manufactured temp rise.. Any science that uses these data sets is garbage.
The whistle-blower that exposed this fraud should be given a medal! it is a huge lie and those who are trying to minimize it are hiding the fraud… Using CRU data for anything results in questionable data.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=64268961&postcount=1
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
You question the burden of proof… 2
Lets look at science and ethical science practices..
Rule One.. Never discard data or methods ( science must be repeatable by others for verification) you cant do this if the data and information on what and why you did it are absent..
Rule Two: Allow other areas of science access to all data. other disciplines such as statistical annalists and other related fields can prove or rule out your theory.
Just these first two basic rules were smashed by these so called scientists…
Destroyed the work product.. How can you recreate the experiment if no one can see what you did and why,,, AND a group of 24 or so scientists that peer reviewed each others work from with in the same circle. this is not ethical as many of these same scientists co-wrote the papers they were reviewing (I remember checking my own work in school,,,)
The blatant disregard for science should end these so called “scientists” careers…
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
” My sense is that the climate skeptic commenters we’re seeing aren’t actually familiar with the vast body of climate science work out there, and don’t realize how most individual studies are little more than a drop in the evidentiary bucket. It is because of the consilience of evidence from multiple studies and fields that we accept that climate change is human caused, and it is because of the vast diversity and number of scientists, and scientific bodies, who find that evidence compelling that we talk of a consensus.”
1. You have no evidence that the warming is human caused because the others have not been ruled out.
2. After researching the studies out there 99.9% quote the CRU and or one of its data sets created by the above scientists.. How do you justify this?
3. Silencing of skeptical researchers was the general rule. they refused multiple FOIA requests, destroyed data, talked of destroying data, targeted those whom disagreed with their stance…. all of this is exposed in the E-Mails.. and history shows they did in fact destroy careers.
4. Other studies from other disciplines rule out CO2 as the primary driver..
How do you justify your stance? the evidence does not support your statement.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
The Emails show intent… in there own hand statments
The Computer Code show how they did it…
SO we have a smoking gun…. We have the data in the archive of the CRU, we have the Emails showing intent, and we have the computer code that shows how they did it…
Ample Reasonable Suspicion to get a warrant and proceed with prosecution..
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 am
[...] and scholarship writers similar to DISCOVER bloggers Phil Plait and Chris Mooney have entered the fray, arguing which nonetheless the hacked scientists’ association is [...]
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 am
I would disagree with the author’s original premise that the emails in question are umimportant to the body of evidence for AGW and climate science as a whole. The reason for this is: Suppression of evidence, as evidenced in the emails, and the code; possible Introduction of falsified data (to NASA and others), and tampering with the Peer review process.
Suppression of evidence that would contradict the AGW hypothesis would be quite possible from some one in control of the Hadley unit, by tampering with weather station data, either before or after the observations. The MWP (mentioned in the emails) is the most notable example of this, along with a shorter period in the 1940′s, (mentioned in the code) The Harry_read_me.txt has a commented section allowing for the addition of false weather stations(!) into the data. Whether there were good programming reasons for this or not is not the point. This data is then distributed to other scientists for use in their research(except for Steve McIntyre, et al. of course). One would suggest that many cited articles in the literature would use the contaminated CRU data as a source. This leads to bias in the raw data, because you average the CRU data with your data, and later, a subtle bias in the results, because scientists tend to look at other people’s papers before publishing their own papers. Remember, Phil Jones, Director of CRU, has been influential for many years, and has the lack of ethical scruples necessary to tamper, along with the authority/command of subordinates(willing?) to do so for many years now. NASA temperature data may have been influenced by this, some unconfirmed reports of a correction to their temperature data in summer 2009. So previously published work going back maybe 20 to 30 years (depending on how long Phil and his ilk had effective control) could be affected by this, through no fault of the scientists involved. Tracing all the work affected is likely to take months…But evidence that could have disproved AGW has likely been deleted by now, and may well be irrecoverable. These people had the motive and the means to do so.
This is a travesty of science and a tragedy.
Another issue relating to this one is the tampering with and corruption of the peer review process. This is another issue that did not just arise yesterday, but likely had been going on for 20 or 30 or so years, given the age of the individuals involved. (when you are 20 years old you are unlikely to influence peer review). What this has done is slant the whole process to one side of the AGW spectrum, and actually damaged the AGW credibility to both the unwashed public and the eyes of the rest of the scientific commmunity in the long run(in the short run the exact opposite). By only allowing criticism from climate scientists, real world problems with AGW are ignored by the “main stream” climate scientists, and weaker hypothesis’(plural) can get through, because the skeptics paper’s which would normally refute them don’t exist… For one example of a real world issue, see brneurosci.org/co2.html. As a chemist I find this arguement rather convincing, but it is admittedly limited to one part of the debate(about CO2, not the whole issue. The AGW community would have less PR problems today if there had been an honest debate 10 or 20 years ago, or even before the blog author was born. Without more investigation into this issue we cannot determine how long peer review was compromised, and what the consequences are to AGW. One to two weeks is just not enough time. Many of the skeptic’s papers undoubtedly were flawed and deserved to be rejected, but it is unlikely all of them were. For specific examples, GRL, the firing of James Sauier(sp?), and some of Steve McIntyre’s work are mentioned in the emails. I am surprised that of all the various branches of science, the climate scientists have not noticed this and realized the problems this lack of balance causes them. In other scientific branches, rigourous debate refines your ideas before they are tested in the real world, which is rather harsh and unforgiving to engineers, etc….Your enemy(scientific rival) makes you stronger, not weaker…..
By treating the emails as irrevelant, the people at Discover are tarring themselves in the eyes of the non climate science community as supportive of the ethical and moral lapses indicated in said emails(even if this is not actually the case, it’s the underlying perception), and as injecting themselves into a political debate. This is bad news because you will lose readership, and credibility, by doing so, (even if unintentionally), and seeming to take sides in a political debate is a likely losing proposition for a science magazine. Pissing off 30-50%(give or take) of potential readers is a bad long term plan. Scientific American is one example, a once great magazine with a lot less readers now. I would sincerely hope you don’t follow their sad fate.
If some one wants some more specific examples I could provide more, not enough space here.
—Melissa
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:29 am
Science deals with facts and data, forming and testing theories and noticing results of experiments and if necessary adjusting the theory and retesting. Computer models can sometimes be useful but not in predicting climate because it is so complex and we simply have not yet been able to translate all factors in the real world into numbers for computation. If the IPCC models were correct we would be seeing much warmer temperatures in 2009. Clearly, as Dr Kevein Trenberth has commented, it is cooler now than ten years ago. We need to stick to the facts and stop denigrating other human beings.
When we have concrete evidence it will be obvious for all to see. Right now we have an utter fiasco.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
You know, the saddest thing about the fixation on carbon-dioxide as a cause of man-made climate change is that it distracts from all of the real ecological disasters occurring around the world. Who ever hears about deforestation anymore? And that has a hell of a lot more to do with real climate change than carbon.
But Al Gore and his ilk couldn’t figure out a way to make a bundle off of those true man-caused disasters, so they hyped up something they thought could never be proved or disproved in their lifetimes, and they really scored! These clowns make Bernie Madoff look like like a boy scout. The real harm to the planet, the endangered wildlife and the poor that can be directly attributed to them boggles the mind.
That is why I am proud to be a “Global warming Denier.”
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/mann-throws-jones-under-the-bus/
TO FUNNY!!!!!! Mann throws Jones under the bus….
and you folks dont think that the lie has been exposed… Mann is screaming like whooped pup!
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankavitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankavich), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun’s center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.
(Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share. Most good discoveries come from the individuals who seek the truth with out consideration for the limited vision of the thundering herd mentality.
With climategate we have seen the latest stampede, of hurried angst ridden, fear mongering, driving of the ignorant sheep of the world away from the truth and into the pens. By the politically minded “think they know what the rest of us need crowd,” that are controlling the funds, research orientation, and imposing their goals upon the process, to achieve profits as they see fit, to stay in power.
I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun’s magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it’s interactions with the Earth’s weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decadeal durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets. Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination,(the Earth / Moon system’s response to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. In order to find a natural analog to the patterns in the weather there were several things I had to consider.
The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the 172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is just the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis, as the longer term/period parents (Milankivich and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if they were not considered and calculated into the filtering of the swings in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.
A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as a composite of the past three cycles composited together and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the pattern from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.
http://www.aerology.com
The building of Stonehenge at the end of the last ice age, was done as the weather in the area was changing from tundra, to grasses and shrubs, in waves from the El nino effects at the time.
They began a study of the relationship between the Solar and Lunar declinational movement timing, found the lunar 18.6 year Mn minimum/maximum declinational cycle, the 19 year Metonic cycle where the moon is at the same phase and maximum declination on the same date every 19 years, and the 6585 day Saris cycle of eclipses.
From combining the annual seasonal effects of apparent solar declination, and the short term effects of the Lunar declinational movement. The Incas and Mayans understood repeating weather patterns well enough to build a thriving culture, that supported a much larger population, than the area currently barely supports in poverty.
Then along came the Conquistadors, that were assumed to be the gods foretold in prophecy, who took over and killed off the high priests and the learned class (because the Catholic priests with them were convinced, they were idolaters and heretics.) so all were lost that understood how the “Pagan religion†was able to grow that much food with little problems, by the timing of celebrations and festivals that the people partook of, in a joyous and productive mood.
The Mayan stone masons who were busy carving out the next stone block to carve another 300 years of calendar upon, were put to work mining gold to export back to Spain. So with the next stone block unfinished, and in the rough, still in the quarry the Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012.
Most of the population of the area was either killed in battles, or worked to death, while on cocaine to minimize food consumption, and mined gold for export by the false gods.
At home in Europe the Spanish inquisition sought to wipe out the fund of knowledge, (that went underground) about the interactions of the Solar and Lunar declinational movements and other sidereal stellar influences on people, and things in the natural world. As the result of mass killings, and book burnings much knowledge, and data history was lost.
Nicolas Copernicus, (19, February 1473 – 24 May 1543) and Nostradamus, (21 December, 1503 – 2 July 1566) Were around at about the same time and may have collaborated in person, or through a net work of underground friends. To give Nostradamus the idea to convert the data sets of past history sorted by geocentric astrology locations and positions, to a Heliocentric data base from which he drew his famous quatrains. There are many references to late night calculations, aside observations that may have given him his accuracy. Then along came Galileo Galilie , (15, February, 1564 – 8 January, 1642) with proof, that round moons circled round planets.
With the advent of good fast cheap computers, I was able to look at data sets ( although with considerably less coverage due to centuries of suppression,) and sort for Planetary and Lunar influences, and found that the Lunar declinational component, of the orbital movements, of the Moon, was responsible for the driving, of the Rossby Wave patterns, in sync with the lunar declinational tidal forces at work in the atmosphere.
How does this all work you ask? Well there is a magnetic field that surrounds the sun, and magnetic fields, that are invested in the body of the Galaxy. These large scale standing fields, interact to produce fluctuations in the strength of the fields felt upon the Earth as it moves in it’s orbit.
The poles of the Earth are tilted to the axis of the solar system ~23 ½ degrees, giving us the changing seasons. The sun on the other hand is different it’s axis of rotation is vertical, but the magnet poles are tilted ~12 degrees, so as it rotates on an average of 27.325 day period, the polarity of the magnetic fields felt via the solar wind, shifts from the result of the orientation determined by the position of the rotating magnetic poles of the sun.
The inner core of the moon has frozen, the outer core of the Earth is still molten, and a concentration of the magnetically permeable materials that make up the earth. These pulses of alternating North then South magnetic field shifts has been going on since before the Earth condensed into a planet and then was later struck by a Mars sized object (so the current theory goes), that splashed off most of the crust.
Most returned to the Earth, some was lost into interplanetary space, and some condensed into the moon. Somewhere in the process the center of mass of the moon gravitated toward the surface that faces the Earth, before it froze, causing that denser side to always face the Earth.
It is not the center of mass of the Earth that scribes the orbital path of the Earth about the sun but the center of mass of the composite Earth / moon barycenter that lies about 1,200 kilometers off of the center of mass of the Earth, always positioned between the center of the earth and the center of the Moon. So as the Moon rotates around the earth to create the lunar light phases, the center of mass of the earth goes from inside to out side, around the common barycenter. As the Moon moves North / South in it’s declination, the center of mass of the earth goes the opposite direction to counter balance, around their common barycenter that scribes the smooth ellipse of the orbit around the sun. So really the Earth makes 13 loops like a strung out spring every year.
The magnetic impulses in the solar wind has driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the tides in phase in the atmosphere, because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day. At these culminations of declination movement the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.
Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability than the same data set filtered by Lunar phase alone.
There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.
By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events, with a better accuracy than the forecast available for three to five days from NOW from conventional NWS / NOAA sources.
So by looking at the periods of declinational movement and the four fold pattern of Rossby wave propagation, while maintaining the inner planet synchronization. I get all of these influences in sync to look almost the same, as the current conditions, even to periods of hail, and tornado production.
When the outer planets are added into the mix, they are out of phase in regard to the inner planet / Lunar patterns, and their influences are not in Sync with these background patterns. There are lines of magnetic force that connect each planet to the sun, and these revolve around with the planets naturally.
As the Earth’s orbit takes it between these outer planets and the sun (at Synodic conjunctions), the increase in magnetic fields carried via the solar wind, (to effect this outer planet coupling) is felt upon the Earth’s magnetosphere, and results in a temporary increase in the pole to equator charge gradient then a discharge back to ambient levels (about a two week long up then down cycle time), how this interferes or combines with the “usual lunar / inner planet patterns†is determined by whether it is in, or out of phase with the background patterns.
During normal charge cycles more moisture is driven into the atmosphere carrying positive Ions, along the ITCZ, and in discharge cycle phases waves of free electrons, and negative ions are sent down from the poles into the mid-latitudes. Charge cycles inhibit precipitation amounts and discharge cycles produce increased precipitation amounts along existing frontal boundaries, due to changes in residual ion charge differences between the air masses.
There is a seasonal increase in magnetic fields coupled from the center of out galaxy to the sun that peaks in mid June (summer solstice), and then decreases till winter solstice. As the magnetic charging cycle associated with this build up in Northern hemisphere Spring, it brings on a bias for surges of positive ionized air masses, that produces surges of tornadoes in phase with the lunar declinational culminations, and other severe weather, will also be enhanced by Synod conjunctions with outer planets, by the same increases of positively charged ions. The closer the timing of the conjunction to a peak lunar culmination the sharper the spike of production, like cracking a whip.
During discharge phases from summer solstice through fall in general, tropical storms manifest as large scale discharge patterns to ring the moisture, heat, and excess ions out of the tropical air masses. Outer planets conjunctions at these times help to build moisture reserves in the atmosphere, during their ion charge contribution, and enhance storms to category 4 and 5 levels when in phase with their discharge phase influences. So to say that the planets have no real influence on the world in general, is the same as to totally disregard how much the weather, effects how people live and survive.
I think that the influences felt at the surface, are just changes in the back ground stimuli, and not strongly controlling enough to lose free will, when we chose to interact with the total spectrum of stimuli that surrounds us at any particular moment. The 18+ year long repeating pattern is long enough that the other conditions surrounding a person have changed, via plant growth, soil changes, age, or location on the surface of the earth, since the last cycle.
On the ground, all plants that have roots in the soil share soil ions and nutrients, via microbial sharing, fungal predation, and companion plants that support each other. The organic matter from past growth that gives up valuable nutrients as it decays, and adds texture to the soil for better aeration and moisture penetration, form a mat of interacting processes, that breath life into the environment.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Give it up mate – you are in Denial. These CRU jokers have elevated Science to the level of charlatan. NO amount of spin is going get back your credibility – and the longer it takes for you to realise the mistake, the sillier you look. It is absolutely hilarious, that the general public do “get it” but all these “best and brighest” really have no clue at all. I see fools still dragging out the puss infested whore – “peer review”. I see a lame argument that there is other research on climate change – as if the core lie about C02 doesn’t matter. Ha Ha Ha, won’t be back to this propaganda site….
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Chris your a douche!
Makin’ up data the old hard way
Fudgin the numbers day by day
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Michael Mann thinks he so smart
totally inventing the hockey stick chart
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
The tree ring data was very thin
you shoulda chopped more trees instead of hugging them.
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
Well you know its a crime and hope you do a lot of time
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-35m.html -
quote
“Back on the case. I need to find where the post-1990 data came from for these three stations. I already know
That didn’t work, real areas 10x too small (synth areas OK though). So..
Hmmm.. still some problems. In several areas, including a swathe of Russia, the mean values drop
around 1991 – just when MCDW comes in.
You can see that the data after 1990 are for some months significantly lower than the
period before.. which would be the period the normals would be based on! I used Matlab
to calculate the normals for this series:
They aren’t percentage anomalies! They are percentage anomalies /10. This could explain why
the real data areas had variability 10x too low. BUT it shouldn’t be – they should be
regular percentage anomalies! This whole process is too convoluted and created myriad
problems of this kind. I really think we should change it.
I was going to do further backtracing, but it’s been revealed that the same issues were in 2.1 – meaning that
I didn’t add the duff data. The suggested way forward is to not use any observations after 1989, but to allow
synthetics to take over. I’m not keen on this approach as it’s likely (imo) to introduce visible jumps at 1990,
since we’re effectively introducing a change of data source just after calculating the normals. My compromise is
to try it – but to also try a straight derivation from half-degree synthetics.
So, first, we need synthetic-only from 1990 onwards, that can be married with the existing glos from pre-1990.
Actually, we might as well produce a full series of gridded syn-only rd0. Hell, we can do both options in one go!
No point in using the final gridding routine, rd0_gts_anom can produce glo files itself, let’s give it a go.
Well – not straightforward. rd0_gts_anom.pro is quite resistant to the idea that it might produce half-degree
synthetics, to the point where I’m really not sure what’s left to modify! Eventually found it.. the .glo saving
routine takes a second argument which is a code for the grid size. Because just giving it the grid size just
wouldn’t be the same, would it? Here it is:
So actually, this was saving with a gridsize of 5 degrees! Disquietingly, this isn’t born out by the file sizes,
but we’ll gloss over that. So, with ’23′ changed to ’12′, we have rd0_gts_anom_05.pro.”
go nuts, read as much as you like of the ‘read me’ files here: http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html .. they’re simply ‘tinkering’ with data to try to get an output that matches their expectations..
this is politics not science! The sad bit is people are dithering over this and that when they should be chilled to the core to realise what the real agenda is : http://green-agenda.com/
December 4th, 2009 at 4:47 am
The best evidence available show that surface temps have warmed 0.7 of a degree centigrade in the past 150 years or so.
Some say MOST or ALL of this increase is human-caused. Others say natural factor account for most or all of it.
Given that the period in question has seen a doubling of population, a mass migration of peoples into cities, the invention of the electric light, the automobile, the aeroplane and central heating systems, it would be remarkable if all that human activity had contributed NO warming.
On the other hand, the forecasts from the climate scientists talk of increases of 5 or 6 degrees in the coming century.
The burden of proof is surely on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these projections are well founded if we are to make radical economic changes.
Climategate makes me doubt whether their projections can be relied upon.
Does this make me a skeptic/denier?
I don’t think so.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Asking questions, and finding answers to compare, to further evaluate, gives us a gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.
Diversity of thought in additional areas of knowledge, gives a more rounded vision, allowing the formation of more complex answers, and resultant questions, that can present data in a format, that is visual enough that it shows the balancing of several forces at work as they really do.
From a viewpoint of how the assemblage of parts seamlessly fits together, you only have to do is watch the (short but seemingly) endless stream of satellite photos animated and synchronized by 27′.32 days periods, to see the repeating cycles.
To set up five tiled windows, in the first show day one- thru27 sequentially, the as they continue on in the same stream, the cycle of the first 27 days continues anew in window #2, synchronized by Lunar declination to #1. Till they spill over into window #3 stepping in phase with the other two, #4 the same idea gives you the four basic patterns of the Rossby wave 109.3 day cycle, of global circulation, that then repeat but seasonally shifted.
In window #5 then would be the first repeat of window #1 in the same phase of the same pattern, and should look a lot like window #1. As the progression through the total series , proceeds, 6558 days into the five stacks a 6th window opens and the original day #1 in window #1 opens as #1 in window #6. As the series progresses on, real data can be viewed, in the real interactions going on.
This would give you a look into the cyclic pattern that develops from the repetitive interaction of the inner planets and Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles.
By adding a sliding ball, vertically moving up and down a +-30 degree scale bar, on the side of each tile space, that shows the plot of the current Lunar declination for the time of each frame.
By adding another slide bar of +-30 degrees at the top, of each tile you could view each outer planet as we pass them, as color coded discs labeled, J, S,U, N, shifting from left to right as we pass them. this progression of the outer planets can then be seen in the additional surges in ion flux as they go by.
Once the amount of additional angular momentum, and the process of it’s coming and goings clearly seen, it can then be measured, it’s effects calculated, and incorporated into the climate models, giving us a much better picture, of all of the parts of the puzzle.
All of the necessary data is in the archives, and free to use to those that have the where with all, to assemble the real truth, be it inconvenient or not.
December 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Sorry dude all the so called scientists used the same crooked data from these crooks ,this is a giant fraud involving many people even the peer review was rigged ,the code alone shows just how they di it as well ,when your busted your busted.Its all bout a one world communist dictatorship as stated in the treaty that they refuse to disclose .read the treaty ,i have it makes hitler look like a boy scout.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
In the comments I read, there is not a single one in which a global warming denier posited a viable reason to assume that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t happen, aside from a raving suspicion of scientists as a whole. If you’re that paranoid about what science creates, why are you using a computer in a building that you arrived at using a car with an internal combustion engine?
Get over yourselves, you’re as bad as the people who have “proof” that 9/11 was an inside job, but when pressed never post it.
Write up a researched article that includes climate models, real live data, and your assumptions and approximations, that then results in the conclusion that all existing climate science is wrong. I don’t even care if it’s peer reviewed or not. Write it up, do the simulations, and post it somewhere. Anywhere. I don’t care. If you know better than the experts, then clearly you should be able to do what the experts do to reach their conclusions using data, modeling, and extrapolation, and reach an opposing conclusion with a greater degree of certainty than they do. Make it convincing and publish it in an open place, and without making any ad hominem attacks answer each well-reasoned piece of criticism for your model and conclusions and post it all. If you’re that much smarter and you “get it” better than climate scientists who have spent their entire lives studying these things, then this shouldn’t be that hard to achieve.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Stephen, climate models? Are you joking? That’s the problem with AGW. It is based on models which were programed by a person who has an agenda. Anyone with Basic programing can make a model. The funny thing is, NO ONE can make a accurate climate model. There is a lot of conjecture involved using inaccurate proxies and guesstimation. The fact that the work was “peer” reviewed by people with the same agenda makes the information suspect. I don’t even know how these guys can call themselves “experts”. Is this a title they proclaimed themselves? Then they have their herald, the Goreacle who is a halfwit that thinks the core of the earth is several million degrees. He said this plain as day on the Conan O’Brian show. What you should do is lose the ego, forget the AGW creed, and remember, the AGW argument is about money now and how much are the “watermellon greenies” are going to get their hands on which may include Phil and Chris. (speculatioin of course) (I got the term watermellon greenie from someone else because they are green on the outside and communist red on the inside…it’s a new world order thing)
December 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Stephen, you say you haven’t seen one bit of evidence from the skeptics (deniers, your words) but I haven’t seen any evidence from the church of AGW either. They are just hackin’ the info from the already suspect frauds. Where’s your evidence? Don’t start spouting off CO2 and greenhouse gas stuff. That’s a straw-man. I want real evidence.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:42 am
[...] reporter Andy Revkin’s popular dot earth blog. (To put that comment into sharp focus, see here, here,or here). So what if it only got 30 recommends, more than most of the other early comments. [...]
December 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The more I read comments, the more I see [anthropogenic or not] global warming deniers sounding almost as if they were bogus straw men. Poe’s law strikes again. They’d do better by just keeping silent or just quoting — literally — what the diverging scientists have to say (if that’s the only thing they will read/accept), rather than exposing what they think is a valid scientific possibility with “why there are still monkeys” and “Piltdown man was fraud” analogues.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Here are 450 peer reviewed studies that expose the flaws in AGW theory. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html I’ve studied this for 6 years and have yet to find an AGW scientist respond to a valid empirical critic with a convincing real world rebuttal.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Can someone just provide the public with a spreadsheet of station data that has been untampered with & unadjusted. How difficult is it to create a graph in excel and look at the trend ourselves? Most people are smart enough to recognize a trend if there is one. Rather than adjusting the data why not just note when something significant to the data collection has changed? How do the ‘scientists’ calculate the amount of adjusting they do? How do we trust those numbers? With adjustments, you can manipulate data to look like whatever trend your government will fund.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
EVIDENCE
Part of the problem with this debate is that the critics of the science behind anthropogenic global warming have no idea just how much of it there is, how long that body of evidence has been growing, or how consistently it has withstood genuine criticism (as opposed to the bogus critiques issued by industry shills). We are talking tens of thousands of scientists, hundreds of thousands of studies and papers, and thousands of lines of evidence from a whole plethora of fields and sources. The current consensus has taken a century or more to develop.
Does the entire climate science community rely solely on the datasets produced by the CRU? Not at all. This is a calculated lie, systematically broadcast to the public in a coordinated media campaign funded by fossil fuel companies. The CRU maintains the HADCRUT3, a global surface temperature data set. But in addition to this there is also the GISTEMP maintained by NASA, the GHCN-Monthly maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a temperature record going back to 1880 maintained by the National Climatic Data Centre. The vast majority of this information, including the raw station data it was extracted from has been publicly available for many years.
The following link gives an overview:-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_intro.html
Here you’ll find graphs, links to that raw station data – the works. As you can see, the evidence for global warming is absolutely overwhelming:-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsa.html
Regards,
P.
December 26th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The prospective predictive power at ten years, based on the IPCC computer models that have not been retrospectively altered to fit the AGW premise , have 95% confidence intervals that stretch from Mee-ah-mee to Ca-lee-foe-ne-ah. Thereby predicting everything and therefore meaning nothing.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:48 am
“Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :
1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.
2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.”
What?!?! Of COURSE these are foundational to these concerns worldwide, these guys have the ear of the IPCC, for God’s sake!! To make a statement like that is virtually NewSpeak.
What is the MATTER with people?!?!?
Never mind the fact that every drop of oil we DON’T burn will be burned in India or China instead – and thus this carbon war is totally useless and misguided, and we should be desperately researching and developing alternative energy, rather than indulging in mass murder overseas for something we pretend is destroying our societies – societies that would not even exist without the object of our virulent hatred (self-hatred?).
A tax on CO2 is literally a tax on BREATHING. Does it get any more Orwellian than THAT?!?
Are you willing to have your body’s annual CO2 output evaluated by some stranger whose salary is the sole purpose of the tax which they will assess upon your very person?
CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.
We do not live in a Democracy, but a Hypocracy !!
January 5th, 2010 at 2:04 am
[...] professor and science author Chris Mooney further explains: “Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning [...]