Rogue Scientists and Climategate

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
welder welder's picture

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Nope. Once again: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

 

Once again,nothing to prove your ideological claims yet...

 

I quote one Phil Jones from your article...

"in fact",according to the scientist,"the raw data is still available at the metoerological stations where they obtained it--"

Get Philly boy to fix his problem...Get the data and publish it!...Problem solved...

welder welder's picture

Michael Nenonen wrote:

I've got to go to bed now. For those keeping score, just assume that I'm continuing to respond to the blistered welder's same old arguments with the same old links to the same old Media Matters research that destroys the "climategate" allegations.

Michael standing on soap box...

 

"I'M RIGHT!!!I'M RIGHT!!!I'M RIGHT!!!"

now plugging his ears...

"lalalalalalalal"...

 

Brilliant position and arguement,kiddo.....I just love dealing with intransigent ideologues...

Kaspar Hauser

Ah--my claims are "ideological." Calling Phil Jones "Philly Boy" and scientists "thugs", that's just non-ideological objectivity at its finest.

Have you noticed how the goal posts have shifted? At first, the claim was that the raw data has been destroyed. Now it's that the raw data hasn't been published yet again, even though the data that has been published was consistent with those of other research centers with similar data sets.

It's sort of like the Obama birth certificate fiasco: no matter what Obama produced, there was always a further demand from people who were certainly as "non-ideological" as the blistered welder.

Now I really have to get to sleep.

 

But before I do...

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

welder welder's picture

Sorry you don't like the terminology.For the record I think RTW/Open Shop sympathizers are anti-labour thugs.

 

Thanks for repeating yourself for the 4th time without providing an answer to the simple fix to Philly's conundrum.

 

Ideologues...Lullabye...And Good Night...

demagogue

What is the red herring with these emails? 

That Phil Jones and other scientists were angry with the peer review process of a scientific journal because it was letting papers get published without verifying the sources of the data and they were threatening to boycott it. This wasn't some secret opinion, half the board of the journal quit that year because of the incident.

That CRU rounded up a variable to the nearest fraction of a degree in historic translations of temperature?

There is nothing in these emails that was new or secret. 

Greenhouse gas effects are proven science from about the 1930s. They are why life even exists on this planet and we don't drop down to mnus -233 at night like the moon.

The only think that is difficult and at question is projecting for how much temperature will rise.

Global warming isn't neccessarily uniquely man made. 

There is natural sun variations, and even minor axis shifts every few hundred years that affect the temperature which is why we had warming and cooling in the past.  But, when you double the concentration of carbon dioxide, its like putting a sweater on the planet, it increases heat retention.

Hot years, will be that much hotter,  Cooler years will exist but they wwill be warmer than they would have.

Greenhouse gases are not just heating the planet.  They are also turning the oceans moe acidic as CO2 becomes carbonic acid once dissolved.  We don't evne know fully how this will affect us.

CRU's emails show nothing to debate the science, and the only thing thy demonstrate is there are unknowns in past and future projections. (as opposed to real temperatures for the last 100 years).  Any report, such as the IPCC recognize these already.  They give a range of possible temperatures and the results.  Even then, some affects such as sea level change and ice cap meliting have shown the IPCC's projections to be inaccurate as the real data is more extreme.

The only thing done poorly with CRU is their IT security, and their follow up PR statements..

 

Kaspar Hauser

This article is quite good: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

 

"Outspoken critics often portray climate science as a house of cards, built on a shaky edifice of limited data and broad suppositions. However, it's more realistic to think of the science as a deck of cards, spread out, face up. Some data and interpretations of those data are more certain than others, of course. But pulling out one or two interpretations, or the results of a few scientists, does not change the overall picture. Take away two or three cards, and there are still 49 or 50 cards facing you.

"The "house of cards" view results partly from the representation of human-induced climate change in opinion polls and in the press, which split the debate into "believers" and "skeptics." This dichotomy is misleading for many reasons, particularly because it implies that those who are concerned about human-induced climate change believe every single claim made by every scientist on this topic, in the way that some fundamentalists claim to believe in the literal truth of every word in a religious text. Similarly, it implies that all skeptics doubt the entire theory.

 

"In fact, most scientists are skeptics, to one extent or another, about climate science and almost everything else. Of course, there are a few who actually believe with complete certainty that they are right, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. These folks can't conceive of the possibility that they could be mistaken; they really are like religious zealots. However, the genuine scientific skeptics greatly outnumber the true believers, and in most scientific debates the skeptics prevail ... after a while"

Kaspar Hauser

Oh, and this is good: Here's some choice objectivity from the non-ideological Christopher Monckton that welder linked to a while back:

 

"At Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it. I have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' - because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

 

"How many of you think the world 'election', or 'democracy' or 'vote', or 'ballot' occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathy with these points of view and he'll sign. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel peace laureate. Of course, he will. And the trouble is this: if that treaty is signed your constitution says it takes precedence over your constitution and you can't resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other state parties. And because you'll be the biggest paying country they'll not let you out.

 

"So, thank you America. You were the beacon of freedom. It is a privilege to merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. And neither you, nor any subsequent government you may elect, would have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is. I have read the treaty. I have the seen the stuff about government, climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

"But I think it is here - here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire - it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty, for there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, economically speaking, there's nothing we can do about it.

"So I end by saying to you the words Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the second world war. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow: 'Sail on, O ship of state. Sail on, union, o strong and great. Humanity with all it fears. With all the hopes of future years. Is hanging breathless on thy fate.' Thank you."

 

As the Guardian's Environment Blog puts it,

 

"As is now the norm among sceptics, the speech contained a hearty serving of conspiracy theory about how "factions of the left" are colluding to take over the world and "do not care how many people die" as a result of their misguided policies. But the conclusion (go to 1:31:00) ratcheted up the conspiracy dial to max with a rant about how a "communist world government" is going to be created imminently. And for good measure, he throws in mention of Churchill to sledgehammer home the point to the audience that the environmental "communists" are as much a threat to the freedom-loving Americans as the Nazis"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/20/climate-change-de...

blister

obama copenhagen commemorative piece. order now and make your home a little greener, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCiTAJi1yRk

Polunatic2

Won't debating this set back the fight against climate change by decades? 

demagogue

The US, Britain, Canada, France and others have been sucking wealth out of non-european nations since the 1600s. Most of western wealth was achieved at the end of a cannon, by enslavement, or by exploiting resources by propping up dictators.

We owe a debt to the third world and if it comes by sending Africa resources so they can build solar powered electrical generation systems instead of coal, so be it.  Up until this point, we have leant their dictators money to buy weapons that the people never wanted and enslaved them with debt.  While the US has forbidden economic aid to be used on condoms or birth control. 

People complain about some big mysterious one world government.  

Global problems do require global solution.  We've already had one world autocracy and corporatism for a hundred years.  We already have multinational banks that set economic policy and money speculators that crash economies.  We already have military industrial complexes that have manufactured wars.  We already have global agricultural firms creating terminator crops.

What we lack is global regulations with teeth designed to actually limit abuses. 

lovewillthink

Here is a link to this story being covered on CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/03/tech-climate-east-anglia-r...

This so called "Climategate" changes nothing. Human induced climate change is still by far the strongest theory, stronger than increased solar radiation or anything else. A few emails from a few scientists changes nothing. The data supporting human induced climate change is way bigger than "Climategate".

The IPCC does not conduct research. They compile research conducted in peer reviewed journals and there is not one single credible peer reviewed journal in the world where you will find very many articles that deny climate change. There isn't a single scientific organization in the world that doesn't support human induced climate change either. Using the word "Climategate" says to me that the person using it is desperate to deny human induced climate change for some reason or simply does not understand the issues.

 

blister

the few scientists you refer to happened to be on the cutting edge of the global warming theory...

"- From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial "hockey-stick graphs" that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.

From: Phil Jones, July 5, 2005

"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish."

- From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005

"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

- From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003

"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."

- From: Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009

"Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2258373&p=2

welder welder's picture

ruh roh...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Give it up, already. Even the idiot neoCons think this story is a piece of garbage: Prentice not swayed by leaked e-mails

 

excerpt:

 

Environment Minister Jim Prentice said it was unfortunate that a prominent scientist was forced to resign because of revelations in the e-mails, but the government still believes the science is clear that human activity is causing climate change.

excerpt:

 

"The science overall is relatively clear on all of this and as a conservationist and as a responsible environmental steward, Canada wants to see carbon emissions reduced," he said.

welder welder's picture

I wonder who's going to get rich off of Cap and Trade...HHHhhhhmmmm???

blister

i'm sorry, did you say something to debunk the source code and the emails or was that 'clunk' a bag of nails hitting the floor?

"Al Gore has just cancelled a high-profile appearance at the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference only days after ‘ClimateGate’ revelations cast doubt on the legitimacy of the scientific ‘consensus’ ("hiding the decline" is not scientific in any respect). Just days ago, CRU director Phil Jones stepped down from his position at East Anglia University. "

http://www.infowars.com/its-over-al-gore/

Merowe

welder wrote:

I wonder who's going to get rich off of Cap and Trade...HHHhhhhmmmm???

So, what's really at the heart of this? It's not the science, since the deniers were effectively blown out of the water decades ago.

You want to know what's really going on?

There is a massive and apalling information gap between the science and the general public - cue the mainstream media, allied with and representing the dominant economic forces in those nations most heavily invested in dirty energy. The dominant forces are oil and coal. Think about the Bush government and how heavily the oil industry was represented, starting with BOTH Bush and Cheney.This was a filthily corrupt regime that thought nothing of pushing that nation into an evil foreign war to maintain dominance over someone else's oil resource. It didn't work, by the way, proving they're really not that bright.

Even now there are more than four oil and coal lobbyists per congressman in Washington working to shoot down any climate legislation, such as was passed, once again years ago, in most of the rest of the planet.

Cue welder who blunders into the middle of the fray, painfully uninformed, and starts mouthing the propaganda put out by the world's most powerful lobby.

Who's going to get rich off of cap and trade? Good grief man, the oil industry is ALREADY fantastically rich and fighting hard to stay that way; like General Motors they are painfully out of touch with social needs; unlike General Motors they're able to rig the system - for now - to maintain their dominance.

While it's no surprise these inherently conservative and threatened industries are going to resist any change that shrinks their piece of the pie, it IS kind of pathetic they can count on a woefully underinformed public to do their dirty work for them.

Obviously in the shift to cleaner energy technologies new industries will prosper while those that are slow to pick up on the changes will suffer - and that is just as it should be in our wonderful capitalist system. Not a lot of cloth coming out of Birmingham these days, not a lot of steel being produced in Pittsburgh. That's the system.

It's pretty absurd. Here you are buying into the hilarious fictions put out by the denial lobby - where lots of money is being made - without pausing to examine the various interests at play. Do you really think ideas like global conspiracies of scientists, or communist world government are anything other than surreal fantasies that play to our subconscious and have ZERO traction in the real world?

So, according to you it would seem the dirty energy companies, with their track record of warmaking and perverting democracies domestic and foreign - this lot are innocent of massive manipulation to prevent the move to cleaner energy, that would somehow be beneath them or something? They're the GOOD guys in all this and it's a bunch of academics at fault? Do you know ANYTHING about academia, or the scientific process?

And for Christsakes stop going on about a few stolen emails. If you'd actually glanced at the massive quantity of data coming in from a wide range of fields from oceanography to climatology to glaciology to geomorphology to biology, you'd see how ridiculous it is to suggest such a puff of smoke means anything in the face of such diverse data sources, EMBARRASSINGLY ridiculous.

Seriously. Stop feeding off the garbage put out by the denial lobby, dig deep enough to genuinely understand the various forces in play, make clear-headed judgements as to how they have operated historically and continue to operate, get up to speed on the science, which while not complicated is obviously voodoo to the undereducated neanderthals so passionately denouncing it. You're obviously intelligent and admirably independent of mind - just dig deeper, you haven't got there yet. Obviously I think you can or I wouldn't be writing this. Happy researching.

 

ss atrahasis

Tonight, on the CBCNN, Evan Solomon, Mark Kelley, and Wendy Mesley, all belatedly brought up socalled climategate, relatively uncritically, three days before Copenhagen. Why would they bring the damn emails up now, suddenly, in a very uncritical manner, when for the past week and a half, scientists and activists have had to spend unfortunate amounts of time responding to the denial-conspiracy clusterfuck caused by these stolen emails, and the CBC barely noticed? CBCNN even gave credence to the denialist meme that emails weren't stolen, but maybe even leaked from the inside. oooh, the conspiracy

The science is still sound, the emails have been cherrypicked by ACC deniers, but the mass media still fail to report climate change accurately.  And the skepticism  surrounding the science is presented as valid skepticism and not what it is, truly, ideological ignorance.

I guess it's my fault for not changing the channel for a couple hours. I've learned now though. CBCNN is a joke.

 

(I'm not a new poster, nor a regular poster either, I just lost my login password, and the email associated with my account no longer is reachable, so was locked out)

 

blister

"A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.

Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports."

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-investigator-is-member-of-vehemently...

Merowe

blister wrote:
"A civil servant who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science. Meanwhile, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ludicrously announced that it will conduct its own investigation into the climategate scandal, despite the fact that the suspects involved have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports."
">http://www.infowars.com/climategate-investigator-is-member-of-vehemently...

Ah. In my earlier post I assumed I was dealing with a native intelligence equal to or greater than that of a common or garden lawn ornament. Please excuse my arrogance.

I also used the term 'research', assuming bluster et al would confine themselves to something called 'empirical science', which they can learn about here: (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science).

And probably should.

If citing the knee-jerk mouthings of a profoundly unqualified 35 year-old community college drop-out with paranoid tendencies and an affinity for Republican ideology (Alex Jones/ 'Infowars') constitutes 'research' in your books, then by all means, let us broaden the debate.

I'll see your Alex Jones and trump you with the opinion of my brother's pet rat which has just urinated on the palm of my hand, unequivocally indicating its own sceptical assessment of 30 years of climatological data. To those expressing doubt, it must clearly be so since I whispered the question 'what do you think of global warming' into its furry brown ear moments before it relieved itself.

There. Isn't science fun? Now let's move on to that other burning issue of the day, how many angels can dance on the HEAD of a PIN?

 

 

welder welder's picture

Funny....

..and interesting...

 

Merowe,what are your feelings on "The Big Lie" theory and do you think that modern society is too intelligent to fall for massive macro-economic absurdities?

George Victor

When you have control of the media, welder, you don't have to worry about the truth, you assume that "what's good for General Motors is good for America" , eh?

In the case of climate change, the truth must be suppressed as long as possible, because it seems that what WAS good for General Motors was Not a damned bit of good for anyone.  We're into a new era, W. I hope to hell you are not lining up with the remnant of GM as welders were wont to do a few decades back.

DaveW

Merowe,

if it's topnotch science credentials and a real track record in atmospheric physics you need,

why didn't you say so ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

 

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally-such as for the last dozen years or so-it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

 [...]

 

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Merowe

Hm, interesting. I think Hitler's 'Big Lie' was fairly shrewd (and cynical) and could be traced back to Macchiavelli though I cannot support that. But in terms of manipulating the masses, the Nazi Reich and perhaps Stalin's Russia pioneered many of the propaganda techniques which have since been so instrumental in constructing our modern 'managed democracies' in North America.

I cannot speak to the intelligence of an abstraction such as 'modern society' but I note that public opinion polls in England, the United States and Canada consistently demonstrate a majority opinion AGAINST involvement in Afghanistan but nonetheless....there we are, blowing up brown people! And so it is with public health care.

So the will of the people, and the innate intelligence of the people, is not the same thing as the implemented policies of their governments, or the economic elites they represent.

Consider the recent trillion dollar bank bailouts, the brazen, in-your-faceness of the manifest self interest of a tiny elite, maintaining its dizzying wealth at the expense of the slowly sinking taxpayer. The big lie in this case was that certain institutions, closely identified with the economic elite, were 'too big to fail'. Says who? What happened to free market, survival of the fittest bullshit?

I still have trouble understanding how they managed to pull that one off, but it seems they have, so that one year later, banker's bonuses are through the roof while the continent stagnates, at best. There is a peerless 'macro-economic absurdity' for you, I can't think of a better example.

But I suppose you refer to the laughable notion that there is a global conspiracy of climate scientists, allied with some 'world government' that is manipulating events to fatten the pockets of some 'leftist elite'? Let's take a closer look at this one: first of all, 'leftist elite' is a contradiction in terms. Secondly, consider how often United Nations initiatives, like birth control in Africa, are gutted by individual states. Its determinations on Israel are routinely flaunted by the major powers and its operating budgets have been systematically underfunded by some of the wealthiest nations for decades. The contention that it has ANY effective power beyond that begrudged it by the dominant powers is to turn the world upside down. The ONLY leverage it has is moral suasion supported by strong empirical research and it is remarkable how much useful work it has accomplished in the face of this. Like any human organization it is fallible and prone to petty tyrannies and personality issues; but I find myself far more worried about rogue players like the United States, perhaps to be followed in a few years by the BRIC nations as they start to grow into their new power.

At the heart of current strategies mooted to address climate change we must be careful to distinguish between the diagnosis, the prescription, and its implementation. Various UN bodies have done a fair job of disseminating the first two, but in the IMPLEMENTATION it is the will of powerful individual agents that threatens to water it down. And so we see, for example, subterfuge such as the timely release of stolen emails - don't you find it curious that nowhere in the main stream/ state / corporate press is anyone demanding an investigation to find out who hacked the government computers? Consider if it had been other data, on military deployment or national security, what a hue and cry there would be to find out the perpetrators, and punish them severely!

But not a peep. This speaks volumes.

And we see vested interests, principally the old carbon energy corporations which continue to occupy the 'economic high ground' doing their damnedest to greenwash their business and water down anything that rocks their boat. That is something to do with human nature I think. So we are seeing a lot of bullshit initiatives out there, a lot of efforts to NOT make the substantive changes modern science unequivocally dictates are required. I've not looked into cap and trade sufficiently to comment on the various proposals out there now. There is a lot of wishful thinking, a lot of denial.

The diagnosis - that anthropogenic atmospheric carbon is changing the climate - is the result of a decades-long process of slowly accumulating data. I'm no historian of the subject but roughly imagine it as first appearing in the form of disturbing evidence showing up in climactic data drawn from a range of sources. So that perhaps an Australian scientist studying ice core data from Antarctica notices a relation between human carbon and global temperatures, while a Finnish researcher in Siberia observes atypical permafrost thawing in stretches of tundra. The important thing here is that the ROOT, the SOURCE of what later has come together as an overarching, general understanding of what now seems to be a global phenomenon is derived from individual scientists toiling away in their own highly specialized fields. This is partly what makes the case so compelling.

I'm not a scientist, I don't even have a university education but my father was one and I have some idea how they work. They have egos and waste a lot of time on pissing contests with one another but one thing you HAVE to understand, is that they generally RESPONSIBLE to their data. It lies at the heart of their work and they are incredibly fastidious about it. Charlatans and frauds do not last long, since all their research is made available to other scientists to examine for themselves. And since there are human egos attached to proving one another wrong, if only to advance their own theories, they try VERY hard to pick each other apart. Their theories are rigorously and repeatedly tested against real-world observation and the results speak for themselves, I think you'd agree, in terms of the incredible technological accomplishments and geometric growth in human understanding of the natural world in the last two centuries.

So over this decades long timeframe more and more data comes in and a picture starts to emerge and it is frightening. So it is not surprising that some frightened people who don't know enough about science will construct ad hominem arguments, and blame the scientists, like blaming the messenger, rather than deal with 'the inconvenient truth', for inconvenient it certainly is. But that's life, eh? Historically of course, setting yourself against science is pretty fuckin' dumb, witness the battles between church and science of the 19th century, and the subsequent dramatic shrinking of the church's role in society.

So, no, I don't for a moment entertain any notions about a global conspiracy of scientists trying to hoodwink the masses, it displays such a stunning ignorance of the reality of how modern science is done. Which is why we see such arguments coming from the traditionally backwards and uninformed elements of society, the Palins and the Becks, etc. as well as more educated opportunists seeking to curry favor with the more reactionary economic powers that be.

Damn that ran on a bit, my apologies.

Merowe

DaveW wrote:

Merowe,

if it's topnotch science credentials and a real track record in atmospheric physics you need,

why didn't you say so ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

 

 


 

I'm reminded of the famous Max Planck quote around the turn of the 19th century, that all the major work in physics and atomic chemistry had been done and all that remained was to fill in the blanks. Planck's contributions to modern physics were significant and are still in use. Within a decade or two, Rutherford had smashed the atom and Einstein had built the Lorentz Transformations into the paradigm shifting relativity theory and Planck was shown to be DEAD WRONG.

First of all you are quoting from The Wall Street Journal again, haven't I spoken about that? I should sooner heed some utterance from the Pope then credit that far from disinterested arse-wipe.

Secondly, your Mr.Linzen, an esteemed scientist, is also a highly paid shill for oil and gas interests. Equals conflict of interest, equals, ruled out of order, once again for compromising DISINTERESTED scientific integrity. I'm all for submitting climate science to the most rigorous examination and he perhaps has a role to play. But you give us one compromised scientist who thrives on his 'maverick' reputation, cited by one 'source' utterly lacking in credibility against, what? An international consensus?

Sorry mate, I'm not buying.

George Victor

Bet the good professor avoids the "egg theory" if he ever gets trapped into reassuring residents of Inuvik that the sudden onset of ice-free summers in the Arctic is only temporary...  while also downplaying the role of the parallel rise in CO2 .  It's just another "normal occasional occurrence".  Now there's chutzpah - and a need for notoriety.

But what really gripes is the prof's comparison of the felt urgency with its undeniably scientific roots, with  the jeremiads' "omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint").

Walrus readers will have seen in the last issue an end page  graphic by Sherman and Parkins on Rex Murphy's denials, ending with Rex ranting:"It's not too late to argue, this isn't doomsday, it's just civilization taking a pee break from the prosperity to which we will surely return..." And Rex holds forth with what can be seen as the professor's central thesis: "Might it not simply be that mother nature is doing unto herself what some claim is being done unto mother nature..."  "It's a gas", as we used to say, back when such concerns were just in their early stages.

 

NorthReport

This is an excellent indicator of just how low the CBC has dropped in quality since Peter Gzowski left the scene.  Rex Murphy may have lots of formal education but I have always considered him to be a buffoon.  

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
Hm, interesting. I think Hitler's 'Big Lie' was fairly shrewd (and cynical) and could be traced back to Macchiavelli though I cannot support that.

 

Goebbels learned a lot, the "Big Idea" included, from a little Jewish PR whiz from New York named Eddie Bernays.

 

Quote:
But in terms of manipulating the masses, the Nazi Reich and perhaps Stalin's Russia pioneered many of the propaganda techniques which have since been so instrumental in constructing our modern 'managed democracies' in North America.

 

We have Bernays to thank for the concept of "engineering of consent" that has dominated post Great War propaganda in North America as well.

Merowe

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
Hm, interesting. I think Hitler's 'Big Lie' was fairly shrewd (and cynical) and could be traced back to Macchiavelli though I cannot support that.

 

Goebbels learned a lot, the "Big Idea" included, from a little Jewish PR whiz from New York named Eddie Bernays.

 

Quote:
But in terms of manipulating the masses, the Nazi Reich and perhaps Stalin's Russia pioneered many of the propaganda techniques which have since been so instrumental in constructing our modern 'managed democracies' in North America.

 

We have Bernays to thank for the concept of "engineering of consent" that has dominated post Great War propaganda in North America as well.

'Century of the Self', no? Yeah, it's brilliant.

blister

"First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical asshole who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

NorthReport

Proof? LaughingLaughingLaughing

blister

....so the hockey stick was proof but the evidence that shows that the stick was as crooked as the kooks that cooked it falls short of the mark - an attitude symptomatic of a climate cult with pretensions to climate science.

NorthReport

Great piece.
This guy explains global warming better than most anyone else.
I love his analogy at the end - you'll have to click on the link to read it.
How I Wish The Global Warming Deniers Were Right...

 

Every day, I pine for the global warming deniers to be proved right. I loved the old world – of flying to beaches wherever we want, growing to the skies, and burning whatever source of energy came our way. I hate the world to come that I've seen in my reporting from continent after continent - of falling Arctic ice shelves, of countries being swallowed by the sea, of vicious wars for the water and land that remains. When I read the works of global warming deniers like Nigel Lawson or Ian Plimer, I feel a sense of calm washing over me. The nightmare is gone; nothing has to change; the world can stay as it was.

But then I go back to the facts. However much I want them to be different, they sit there, hard and immovable. Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket holding in the Sun's rays. Nobody disputes that we are increasing the amount of those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And nobody disputes that the world has become considerably hotter over the past century. (If you disagree with any of these statements, you'd fail a geography GCSE).

Yet half our fellow citizens are choosing to believe the deniers who say there must be gaps between these statements big enough to fit an excuse for carrying on as we are. Shrieking at them is not going to succeed.

Our first response has to be to accept that this denial is an entirely natural phenomenon. The facts of global warming are inherently weird, and they run contrary to our evolved instincts. If you burn an odourless, colourless gas in Europe, it will cause the Arctic to melt and Bangladesh to drown and the American Mid-West to dry up? By living our normal lives, doing all the things we have been brought up doing, we can make great swathes of the planet uninhabitable? If your first response is incredulity, then you're a normal human being.

It's tempting to allow this first response to harden into a dogma, and use it to cover your eyes. The oil and gas industries have been spending billions to encourage us to stay stuck there, because their profits will plummet when we make the transition to a low-carbon society. But the basic science isn't actually very complicated, or hard to grasp. As more carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere, the world gets warmer. Every single year since 1917 has been hotter than 1917. Every single year since 1956 has been hotter than 1956. Every single year since 1992 has been hotter than 1992. And on, and on. If we dramatically increase the carbon dioxide even more – as we are – we will dramatically increase the warming. Many parts of the world will dry up or flood or burn.

This is such an uncomfortable claim that I too I have tried to grasp at any straw that suggests it is wrong. One of the most tempting has come in the past few weeks, when the emails of the Hadley Centre at the University of East Anglia were hacked into, and seem on an initial reading to show that a few of their scientists were misrepresenting their research to suggest the problem is slightly worse than it is. Some people have seized on it as a fatal blow – a Pentagon Papers for global warming.

But then I looked at the facts. It was discovered more than a century ago that burning fossil fuels would release warming gases and therefore increase global temperatures, and since then, hundreds of thousands of scientists have independently reached the conclusion that it will have terrible consequences. It would be very surprising if, somewhere among them, there wasn't a charlatan or two who over-hyped their work. Such people exist in every single field of science (and they are deplorable).

So let's knock out the Hadley Centre's evidence. Here are just a fraction of the major scientific organisations that have independently verified the evidence that man-made global warming is real, and dangerous: Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, L'Academie des Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the UK's Royal Society, the Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the US Environmental Protection Agency... I could fill this entire article with these names.

 

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 

Quote Mining Code  or Another Perspective on the 'Smoking Code' allegations that are now sweeping through the blogosphere since the first set of "Its proof of the biggest hoax evah' allegations are falling flat.

 

 

 And blister right back at you with allegations of subscribing to a cultish mentality. Good grief man you take the word of some blog posting of some engineer who happens to post his analysis of this code on the net as some sort of 100% verifiable proof of wrongdoing? Just like that.  It so must be right, right?  Just because it's being reposted in a dozen places doesn't make it somehow more right. Now tell me who is subscribing to a cultish viewpoint here.  Pot and kettle and all that. 

 

George Victor

Lovely, NR and Eliza.  Needed that.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 NorthReport,

 I feel similar to that guy.  I really would like it to be wrong. Real proof that's it's all just a big new world order hoax would be just fantabulous and everytime some new claim comes out making a 'it's not so bad claim' or whatever I read it. Then I go and read what others say about the claim, think a bit about it and relate it to everything I know about ecology and whatnot and end up giving out a big old  sigh.  Damn still not good enough. The risk of the deniers being right and not deluded still outweighs the risk that they are wrong by a hefty measure.    I think that what gets me most about accusations of following some sort of religion of climate cult.  Like it's something that's enjoyable and leads to some sort of great happiness and contentment.   I'd much rather be in the 'what me worry' camp.

DaveW

Merowe wrote:

DaveW wrote:

Merowe,

if it's topnotch science credentials and a real track record in atmospheric physics you need,

why didn't you say so ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

 

 ....you give us one compromised scientist who thrives on his 'maverick' reputation, cited by one 'source' utterly lacking in credibility against, what? An international consensus

Lindzen (check spelling) and his climate science will come out on top after Copenhagen, no doubt, and the current sky-is-falling hysteria will be seen as a bizarre turn away from science

time will tell

 

 

NorthReport

They are a religious cult. Everything will be fine as long as you don't mess with their Chevron dividends. Unfortunately some get suckered in by these big multinationals and start to believe their kool-aid. Either they are shareholders or nuts. Or maybe both. 

Unfortunately we can't continue to put up with their BS as apparently we don't have a lot of time left. 

Seacoast cities and deltas, which house hundreds of millions of people, are going to be first major victims of global warming. Rising sea levels are going to be catastrophic on humankind. 

I wonder what percentage of the world's population lives at sea level.

 

http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/docs/global-catastrophic-risks.pdf

NorthReport

Maybe there a few who post here who could be added to the list

Quote:
Civil Conspiracy Lawsuits Filed Against Climate Change Deniers

By Linda McClure,
Dec 6, 2009

The need for climate legislation is based upon a wide body of scientific evidence that shows global warming is happening now and warns of climactic changes as that warming continues.

Skeptics and some in the fossil fuels industries have joined forces to claim that the climate science is invalid, hoping to decrease public and Congressional support by tainting the foundation for legislation.

In many ways, their disinformation campaign carries similarities to the tactics of the tobacco industry that "misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease," the Union of Concerned Scientists notes in its report Smoke, Mirrors and Hot air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science."

">http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091206/civil-conspiracy-lawsuits-filed-ag...

abnormal

Not [url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-uk-wea... source[/url] that I would normally go to but it seems that the Met Office (the UK's national weather service) has decided the scandal is serious enough to re-examine 160 years of temperature data.

The new analysis will take 3 years so it will be the end of 2012 before they can give a definitive answer.  Given that the Met Office is one of the three main sources of data that the UN relies on this is a very big deal.

Quote:
 The UK's efforts to quash the Met Office's review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren't terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all.

 

 

George Victor

 "The UK's efforts to quash the Met Office's review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren't terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all."

 

Dumb bunnies. Can't imagine why they would do that. They are just into scarin' folks? Or is it a plot (with a very, very complicated,even twisted, history)?

abnormal

abnormal wrote:

Not [url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-uk-wea... source[/url] that I would normally go to but it seems that the Met Office (the UK's national weather service) has decided the scandal is serious enough to re-examine 160 years of temperature data.

The new analysis will take 3 years so it will be the end of 2012 before they can give a definitive answer.  Given that the Met Office is one of the three main sources of data that the UN relies on this is a very big deal.

 

 

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Here's the original article that the newbuster post is based on.

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

Quote:
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

 Great as far as I'm concerned.  Still doesn't mean that it's all a big hoax, not true or an indicator of a global conspiracy which is what I've seen people jumping to conclusions about.

Most places I've seen reposting quotes from this particular article seem to gloss over this part though....

Quote:
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

 

 And there's the kicker and hopefully the silver lining in all this.  At least arguments based on secret and the darkness of the scientific underworld can be put to rest.  Oh wait....what if the Met is in on it too!

 

Quote:
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

Which is true and exactly what places like Newbusters and other skeptic people are doing. Yes it's ironic. Painfully actually.

I don't personally agree with the politicians on this particular point. I understand it though.

 

remind remind's picture

why in  hell would it take so ;ong?

 

Everybody just seems to want to put everything off until 2012........

 

I hear ya george.....

NorthReport

Duh!

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2300282

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=player_embedded

worth watching if only for the cameo appearances by the Tin Foil Hat Society members...

Brian White

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate has "climategate" in context.

It is kinda like watergate except this time the press is targeting the climate scientists

while the Nixons who ordered the smear campaign get away.

 

NorthReport

Actually if the truth be known...........................

This is rich. All these whingers allied with the oil companies, and the Ruskies 

 

Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?

 

 

FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-servic...

Chester Drawers

Who has committed a crime?  Just wanting to know peoples opinions.

The scientists who conspired to delete emails and documents to avoid access to information legislation requests or the people who hacked the info?

The scientists who destroyed their data and admitted falsefying records or the people who hacked the info?

These are similar acts to Enron, Livent and Sir Black where the parties involved suffered the consequences of the law.

I beleive all are guilty.  It is just sad to see that it took a criminal act to reveal a criminal act.  Who can we trust?

Kaspar Hauser

Chester Drawers wrote:

Who has committed a crime?  Just wanting to know peoples opinions.

The scientists who conspired to delete emails and documents to avoid access to information legislation requests or the people who hacked the info?

The scientists who destroyed their data and admitted falsefying records or the people who hacked the info?

These are similar acts to Enron, Livent and Sir Black where the parties involved suffered the consequences of the law.

I beleive all are guilty.  It is just sad to see that it took a criminal act to reveal a criminal act.  Who can we trust?

 

Oh, for Christ's sake. Since the climate change deniers seem to have blind spots when it comes to links to sites that demolish their arguments, let me post this one more time:

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

Pages

Topic locked