ClimateGate

[boedicca]

Interesting news on the Global Warming Hoax:



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[DngrMse]

Can one of you nice mod types combine my thread with Boe's. Thank ya vera much. /elvis

[boedicca]

Oops - sorry. But my title is better.

:)

[DngrMse]

Oops - sorry. But my title is better.

:)

It is..but I did want to remind everyone of CRU's other recent oopsies.

[boedicca]

Indeed - but it is required that every scandal have Gate in the naming.

[DngrMse]

I guess I could go do something else. It won't be until morning before all the leftwad socks are up to speed on the approved responses, anyway.

[boedicca]

They'll follow the script:

- Attack the author of the article
- Attack the website on which is posted
- Accuse of us just spreading talking points

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Without even bothering to read the articles, too.

[DngrMse]

They'll follow the script:

- Attack the author of the article
- Attack the website on which is posted
- Accuse of us just spreading talking points

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Without even bothering to read the articles, too.

And they can't even accomplish that without someone else telling them to do it.

[boedicca]

They have little Service.gov issued yellow stickies with this Procedure attached to their monitors, fer shur.

[DngrMse]

Amazing how quiet it got, huh?

[lily]

Thanks boe!

I saw the article today, and I was hoping it would get posted.

For those who may have missed the link in the OP:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[boedicca]

Amazing how quiet it got, huh?



There having waiting for the Organizing For America webconference announcement to get the full scripted response.

[DngrMse]

All the lefties logged off. :nice:

[Dick Tator]

All the lefties logged off. :nice:

THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! :shakefist

[Freedom&Liberty]

The church of Global Climate Change will soon become an IHOP. Java may require counseling.

[Dogberry]

University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit


Fame at last East Anglia's on the map!

Well if they say it, it must be true.

[Java_man]

I'm sure when the glaciers get wind of "climate gate" they will be all embarrased about being in on the hoax and instantly restore themselves

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/pasterze.jpg
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Pasterze04Match.jpg

[Freedom&Liberty]

Java is now the denier.

[86Dùde]

It's all bullshit. December will be one of the final nails in the coffin for the U.S. You chocolate tyrant will sign anything they put in front of his face in Copenhagen. POS globalist.

[fat mike]

java has brains in places where some of us dont have places-he will save gw for us lefties!!

[Malcolm Wright]

I'm sure when the glaciers get wind of "climate gate" they will be all embarrased about being in on the hoax and instantly restore themselves

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/pasterze.jpg
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Pasterze04Match.jpg

You'd have to hack the glacier's network and download 'megabites' of its sensitive data before you'll get it to confess, recant and comply. :)

To the lynch mob in this thread:

Its too early to tell what to make of this hack - whether the data is what it claims to be, but a few things to keep in mind:

a) the hackers claim the emails they have released are a 'random' selection from a much larger data set. This begs the question of how come virtually every document one opens has potentially shady content in it. If it was a random selection, the majority if data would be run of the mill communication between scientists.

"Phil, want to grab lunch at the deli?"

"Are you coming to the pub tonight Keith?"

Anyone here who has worked in an office of any sort knows that the majority of email communication is pragmatic and unenlightening.

b) Point a) has several ramifications. It raises the suspicion that the anonymous hacker is lying, and it is not a random selection but a cherry picked one to make the CRU look bad. It also raises the issue of how much time and effort the hacker would have to put into selecting these files for inclusion. Some people are claiming this is not a hoax because it would necessitate too much effort on the behalf of the hoaxer. That same logic begs the question of why a hacker (a person who lives for the thrill of breaking into secure places) would spend the time to sift through an entire mail server to find the juicy bits.

c) I can't even be bothered to read all the documents: why? Because I don't have the context necessary to judge the material. Neither would the anonymous hacker, unless he was a whistle blower: whistle blowers do not post their materials on Russian servers. They step forward and use their credentials to authenticate the accusations they level.

d) Which leads us to the question: who is the 'hacker'? Why does nobody in this thread seem to care? You don't care about the source of your information? That is rather interesting. You seem very eager to discredit the CRU as a source of information, yet completely disinterested in the nature of the single, anonymous source you wish to use to do the discrediting. This would seem to indicate epic doses of intellectual integrity at work. Congratulations.

Has anyone here asked themselves these questions, and if so, what answers did they come up with?

Lastly, if it turns out that the scientists in question did engage in data fudging, it does not discredit the science of climate change anymore than a single instance of oil industry funded pseudo-science trying to convince the public that more co2 in the atmosphere is good for the planet. And there are MANY such examples out there - I don't hear any of the people in this thread using those as a reason to believe in anthropogenic climate change.

[Malcolm Wright]

Java is now the denier.

An anonymous hacker with as of yet unverifiable materials has suddenly turned the tables on the scientific consensus?

:nice: Good to see you're consistent with your lack of rational rigor.

[DngrMse]

An anonymous hacker with as of yet unverifiable materials has suddenly turned the tables on the scientific consensus?

:nice: Good to see you're consistent with your lack of rational rigor.

CRU Anglia has already verified the authenticity of the hacked docs. :nice:

[Dick Tator]

I'm sure when the glaciers get wind of "climate gate" they will be all embarrased about being in on the hoax and instantly restore themselves

Then why are other glaciers growing?

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

[Java_man]

Then why are other glaciers growing?

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

only a small minority are expanding .. the great majority are not

this is classic denier logic .. ignore the whole and cherry pick the few

http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/glacier_thickness.gif

Obviously .. the glaciers have not logged into Malkin or Drudge yet to get the news that they are co conspirators in a hoax

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

[Malcolm Wright]

CRU Anglia has already verified the authenticity of the hacked docs. :nice:

No, they've verified that their system was hacked.
If they have issued a statement saying that the documents in circulation are identical to existing documents on their system, please point me to that statement.

[Corporate Avenger]

I guess I could go do something else. It won't be until morning before all the leftwad socks are up to speed on the approved responses, anyway.


They'll follow the script:

- Attack the author of the article
- Attack the website on which is posted
- Accuse of us just spreading talking points

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Without even bothering to read the articles, too.


And they can't even accomplish that without someone else telling them to do it.


They have little Service.gov issued yellow stickies with this Procedure attached to their monitors, fer shur.


Amazing how quiet it got, huh?


There having waiting for the Organizing For America webconference announcement to get the full scripted response.


All the lefties logged off. :nice:


What deep thoughts here, it's always funny how the most ignorant amongst us think they have it all figured out, maybe one day they'll find the WMD's stashed in a glacier..:nonono:

[Dick Tator]

What deep thoughts here, it's always funny how the most ignorant amongst us think they have it all figured out, maybe one day they'll find the WMD's stashed in a glacier..:nonono:

Hey, ignorant conservatives bought the WMD lie just like ignorant liberals are buying the global warming lie... :nice:

[DngrMse]

What deep thoughts here, it's always funny how the most ignorant amongst us think they have it all figured out, maybe one day they'll find the WMD's stashed in a glacier..:nonono:

And you bring to this discussion what? Exactly?

Are these docs faked? Altered?

Exactly what part of the following do you find innocent?


From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit


What part of this email do you not find offensive? Can you explain why?

[Corporate Avenger]

only a small minority are expanding .. the great majority are not

this is classic denier logic .. ignore the whole and cherry pick the few

http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/glacier_thickness.gif

Obviously .. the glaciers have not logged into Malkin or Drudge yet to get the news that they are co conspirators in a hoax

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html


It's the worldwide glacier conspiracy!!!:tinfoil:

[fat mike]

What deep thoughts here, it's always funny how the most ignorant amongst us think they have it all figured out, maybe one day they'll find the WMD's stashed in a glacier..:nonono:

:eek: we didnt look there,did we!??

[Corporate Avenger]

Hey, ignorant conservatives bought the WMD lie just like ignorant liberals are buying the global warming lie... :nice:

Except global warming is no lie, it's happening, no matter what the powerful petro-chemical industry wants people to think.

To deny it is to deny the greenhouse effect exists, I'm sure you've been in a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up.

[Malcolm Wright]

To deny it is to deny the greenhouse effect exists, I'm sure you've been in a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up.

One day, when the glaciers are all gone, the climate change deniers will try to claim they never existed.

[TrailHiker]

You stretch your logic any thinner and I'll be looking at the backside of my computer screen.



To the lynch mob in this thread: It's clear from the opening salvo that The Malcolm has a stake in the issue which simply means his latter calls for intellectual integrity fall short of the mark


Its too early to tell what to make of this hack - whether the data is what it claims to be, but a few things to keep in mind: Then wouldn’t it equally be too early to discredit the unknown hacker? Too early to call your opposition a lynch mob?


a) the hackers claim the emails they have released are a 'random' selection from a much larger data set. This begs the question of how come virtually every document one opens has potentially shady content in it. If it was a random selection, the majority if data would be run of the mill communication between scientists.No it does not beg the question. This demonstrates one of the many assumption you have made. You are assuming his "random" selection is a small set and you are further assuming that 'virtually every document' held shady content


"Phil, want to grab lunch at the deli?"

"Are you coming to the pub tonight Keith?"

Anyone here who has worked in an office of any sort knows that the majority of email communication is pragmatic and unenlightening. Do you work in the scientific research filed or are you making another assumption? I don't, and yet the majority of emails I receive at work are work related....not personal crap in the form of: "Are you coming to the pub tonight?"


b) Point a) has several ramifications. It raises the suspicion that the anonymous hacker is lying, Since “a)” relied on stretchy-pants assumptions then your suspicion of lying is weak.


and it is not a random selection but a cherry picked one to make the CRU look bad. Uhm....do you think they could have possibly cherry picked the important details from their random selections?


It also raises the issue of how much time and effort the hacker would have to put into selecting these files for inclusion. Why NOT these files? The GW religion is a dangerous threat to freedom. The men responsible for the science behind the religion are worthy targets to hack.


That same logic begs the question of why a hacker (a person who lives for the thrill of breaking into secure places) would spend the time to sift through an entire mail server to find the juicy bits. Again, you are assuming that the particular email accounts are not potential gold mines. Why wouldn't emails between GW scientists be worth the time to read?


c) I can't even be bothered to read all the documents: why? Because I don't have the context necessary to judge the material. Neither would the anonymous hacker, Another assumption. If the hacker hacked into a GW research computer, couldn't he possibly have some interest in the matter? Are you assuming he hacked a random sight?


unless he was a whistle blower: whistle blowers do not post their materials on Russian servers. Is this a fact or another....?


They step forward and use their credentials to authenticate the accusations they level. Yeah, they step forward and admit to breaking the law :nice:


d) Which leads us to the question: who is the 'hacker'? Why does nobody in this thread seem to care? You don't care about the source of your information? That is rather interesting. You seem very eager to discredit the CRU as a source of information, yet completely disinterested in the nature of the single, anonymous source you wish to use to do the discrediting. This would seem to indicate epic doses of intellectual integrity at work. Congratulations. A man hacks a computer and posts discrediting emails. It's confirmed that the computer was hacked. As far as I know, no one has denied the authenticity of the emails nor discovered a certain "fictitious" email. At this point in time, the identity of the hacker isn't relevant


Has anyone here asked themselves these questions, and if so, what answers did they come up with? Only one tool has thus far


Lastly, if it turns out that the scientists in question did engage in data fudging, it does not discredit the science of climate change When global economies are considering major legislation that will curtail individual freedoms, increase the cost to do business or to live, and will punish free markets, based on the research of scientists like the ones in question, then IT DOES DISCREDIT THE RELIGION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
Odd how any research funded by the oil industry is automatically tainted and considered pseudo-science yet research from obvious frauds is defended.

Last question The Malcolm should consider (since he is in a questioning mood):

If the Religion of Climate Change is so sound, why find the need to fudge the numbers and delete emails?

[TrailHiker]

One day, when the glaciers are all gone, the climate change deniers will try to claim they never existed.Glaciers used to cover the majority of North America. They have been receding since the end of the last ice age. No one doubts that the climate is changing....that is the nature of a dynamic system. We doubt the said cause of the change. We doubt the predictions from the GW priests. And we don't agree with the solutions to stop the change.

[DngrMse]

Glaciers used to cover the majority of North America. They have been receding since the end of the last ice age. No one doubts that the climate is changing....that is the nature of a dynamic system. We doubt the said cause of the change. We doubt the predictions from the GW priests. And we don't agree with the solutions to stop the change.

In one of the hacked letters, one researcher in the U.S. admits that climate changes thus far are well within natural variability. He goes on to suggest that they should blame mankind anyway.

:nice:

[Java_man]

In one of the hacked letters, one researcher in the U.S. admits that climate changes thus far are well within natural variability. He goes on to suggest that they should blame mankind anyway.

:nice:

lets see the real mail in context

If this is a great AGW conspiracy .. where are all the mails to and from Al Gore and George Soros ... aren't they at the center of this great conspiracy ?


A Denier Meme Comes Alive

khikoh3sJg8

A great example of how words are taken out of context and spun to take on a new, contrived and utterly false meaning.

[DngrMse]

lets see the real mail in context

If this is a great AGW conspiracy .. where are all the mails to and from Al Gore and George Soros ... aren't they at the center of this great conspiracy ?


A Denier Meme Comes Alive

khikoh3sJg8

A great example of how words are taken out of context and spun to take on a new, contrived and utterly false meaning.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

[boedicca]

java has brains in places where some of us dont have places-he will save gw for us lefties!!


Frankly, one is not interested in brains that are shat out, and doubts they benefit the lefties with the exception of removing a few impurities from their systems.

[boedicca]

An anonymous hacker with as of yet unverifiable materials has suddenly turned the tables on the scientific consensus?

:nice: Good to see you're consistent with your lack of rational rigor.


Deep Throat 2009 or the Climate Version of the Pentagon Papers.

The hacker did yeoman's work - and has revealed a conspiracy to manipulate science for political purposes.

Mr. Boe downloaded the file and is busy reading through it. He made a very valid observation last night: true scientists do not withhold data; the fact that these sets were squirreled away is a tip off that something nefarious was afoot.

There is also a Very Simple way to see if this is a valid "outing". Any citizen can request to see the data and results for taxpayers funded research. It's a safe bet that some of that data was provided by U.S. scientists. I'd love to see someone with the proper scientific background to make comparisons make the request.

Question for UK folks - does the UK have a similar law? i.e., can you make a request for the data from the CRU?

[boedicca]

And you bring to this discussion what? Exactly?

Are these docs faked? Altered?



Here's how the leftie's will deal with this:

Just as the Dan Rather docs were Fake But Accurate, they will claim that the CRU Hack is Authentic But Inaccurate.

This is going to be fun.

:)

[DngrMse]

The UK does have a FOIA law..but these same scientists have discussed in their emails ways to circumvent FOI requests, including deleting data, and emails. Here's one such email, (it's numbered 1107454306).


From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

[boedicca]

Except global warming is no lie, it's happening, no matter what the powerful petro-chemical industry wants people to think.

To deny it is to deny the greenhouse effect exists, I'm sure you've been in a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up.

You're a moron.

Nobody said the earth does not go through periods of warming and cooling. But the greenhouse gas theory pins the bogometer.

And now, more media outlets are acknowledging the obvious, The Earth has not warmed for the past decade:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

[Java_man]

Frankly, one is not interested in brains that are shat out.

Please keep your personal and hygene issues to yourself for godsake



Deep Throat 2009 or the Climate Version of the Pentagon Papers.

The hacker did yeoman's work - and has revealed a conspiracy to manipulate science for political purposes.

Mr. Boe downloaded the file and is busy reading through it. He made a very valid observation last night: true scientists do not withhold data; the fact that these sets were squirreled away is a tip off that something nefarious was afoot.

There is also a Very Simple way to see if this is a valid "outing". Any citizen can request to see the data and results for taxpayers funded research. It's a safe bet that some of that data was provided by U.S. scientists. I'd love to see someone with the proper scientific background to make comparisons make the request.

Question for UK folks - does the UK have a similar law? i.e., can you make a request for the data from the CRU?

So where are the mails to and from Gore .. given the Grand Hyper Scale Super Duper Mega Drama Earth Shattering Conspiracy you believe this to be ?

[boedicca]

An excellent series of articles about scientists who dispute the ManBearPig worldview:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

[boedicca]

The UK does have a FOIA law..but these same scientists have discussed in their emails ways to circumvent FOI requests, including deleting data, and emails. Here's one such email, (it's numbered 1107454306).


This thing is more than a smoking gun - it's a smoking arsenal.

Good catch!

[Java_man]

You're a moron.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Projecting AGAIN ??

See the video I just posted about the bullshit being disseminated by the denier media

[boedicca]

So where are the mails to and from Gore .. given the Grand Hyper Scale Super Duper Mega Drama Earth Shattering Conspiracy you believe this to be ?


If that's all you got, you're going to have to do better.

Gore is not a scientist - he got Cs and Ds in survey science classes in college. He's a politician promoting and exploiting the con.

[DngrMse]

Please keep your personal and hygene issues to yourself for godsake




So where are the mails to and from Gore .. given the Grand Hyper Scale Super Duper Mega Drama Earth Shattering Conspiracy you believe this to be ?

Why do you insist on dragging Algore into this? Afraid to stay on topic, eh? I don't blame you....these documents are damning. Say bye-bye to Copenhagen, and Ploosi's Cap n' Tax scheme.

[boedicca]

I keep saying: The Internets are the last best hope for human liberty.

[Freedom&Liberty]

The MSM can't ignore this forever.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=faces

[boedicca]

It's a beautiful thing. :)

[DngrMse]

Someone's placed all the emails online, and included a handy search feature.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

[boedicca]

Good summary:

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

[Dogberry]

Question for UK folks - does the UK have a similar law? i.e., can you make a request for the data from the CRU?

Yes, we have a freedom of information act.

[boedicca]

Thanks - statements in the emails themselves reveal this and the "researchers" efforts to subvert it.

How Hopey Changey!

[Dogberry]

Thanks - statements in the emails themselves reveal this and the "researchers" efforts to subvert it.

How Hopey Changey!

I wouldnt really quote them as an authority on anything, they are to be honest a back street 'University'

[boedicca]

The emails aren't just limited to within that University - they involve researchers from others and reveal a network among climatologists to cook the books.

Tis fraud.

[TrailHiker]

Here's how the leftie's will deal with this:

Just as the Dan Rather docs were Fake But Accurate, they will claim that the CRU Hack is Authentic But Inaccurate.

This is going to be fun.

:)

The Malcolm has come closest so far:

Lastly, if it turns out that the scientists in question did engage in data fudging, it does not discredit the science of climate change

[boedicca]

Powerline has a good analysis of hoax:

The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded 62 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

The emails I've reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don't doubt that they are sincerely convinced--in fact, fanatically so--that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies. They are often mean-spirited; the web site American Thinker is referred to as "American Stinker;" at one point an emailer exults in the death of a global warming skeptic; another one suggests that the Ph.D. of a prominent skeptic should be revoked because of an error he made decades ago in his dissertation; another says that he is tempted to "beat the crap out of" the same scientist. The emails show beyond any reasonable doubt that these individuals are engaged in politics, not science.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the "science" up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.....

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php

[lily]

No one doubts that the climate is changing....that is the nature of a dynamic system. We doubt the said cause of the change. We doubt the predictions from the GW priests. And we don't agree with the solutions to stop the change.

Just to add my 2 cents... As boe put it, I don't think anyone denies the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling. What I've been saying is bogus is the politically motivated alarmism and fearmongering, such as "It's the end of the world and we're all going to die unless we take drastic measures!!!" That's bull caca, and anyone who understands that the politicians who push that claim the most are the same ones who have a subversive agenda realize that the whole GW thing is just a phony excuse to get the sheeple to fall in line for their agenda, and when the time comes, give up their rights and freedom.

[DngrMse]

Just to add my 2 cents... As boe put it, I don't think anyone denies the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling. What I've been saying is bogus is the politically motivated alarmism and fearmongering, such as "It's the end of the world and we're all going to die unless we take drastic measures!!!" That's bull caca, and anyone who understands that the politicians who push that claim the most are the same ones who have a subversive agenda realize that the whole GW thing is just a phony excuse to get the sheeple to fall in line for their agenda, and when the time comes, give up their rights and freedom.

Once the politicians, and Al Gores of the world start behaving as if this was an emergency, I'd be more inclined to believe them.

[Šñøü†ê®]

I do support humane population control techniques and measures to encourage retards not to pollute, but I thought this was mildly amusing.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/climatology_dees.jpg

[lily]

^ haha!

Btw, has anyone brought up the Al Gore photoshop story yet? I don't remember seeing anyone post it.

[Jeremiah]

the Al Gore photoshop story?

[lily]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/19/al-gore-photoshops-hurricanes-new-books-cover

Apparently, more deception and hot air from Mr. Global warming.

[Corporate Avenger]

You're a moron.

Nobody said the earth does not go through periods of warming and cooling. But the greenhouse gas theory pins the bogometer.

And now, more media outlets are acknowledging the obvious, The Earth has not warmed for the past decade:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html


I find it hilarious that someone as mind numbingly stupid as you calls people morons.

[boedicca]

I do support humane population control techniques and measures to encourage retards not to pollute, but I thought this was mildly amusing.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/climatology_dees.jpg


This is a hoot!

Instead of Xenu - we have Goru!

[boedicca]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/19/al-gore-photoshops-hurricanes-new-books-cover

Apparently, more deception and hot air from Mr. Global warming.


ROFLMAO! What a tool he is - Fake But Accurate.

:|

[boedicca]

I find it hilarious that someone as mind numbingly stupid as you calls people morons.


I'm going to take that as an acknowledgment of my superior brainpower. If a moron like you cannot grok it, it must be awesome.

[Corporate Avenger]

I'm going to take that as an acknowledgment of my superior brainpower. If a moron like you cannot grok it, it must be awesome.

I wonder if you even have a brain, or just a useless lump of nerves that reflexively posts random nonsense from batshit crazy right wing sources.

So far on this board you've been dead wrong about every issue we've ever debated, everything. And you flat Earth types fall for every bit of BS put out by the oil industry hacks because it falls in line with what your filthy and corrupt political party tell s you to think.

Here's a good summary of this nonsense you buffoons are hooting and hollering about.




The CRU hack

Filed under:

Climate Science (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/)

— group @ 20 November 2009
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/)) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.
It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?
Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.
Update: The official UEA statement is as follows:

“We are aware that information from a server used for research information
in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,”
the spokesman stated.
“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.”
“This information has been obtained and published without our permission
and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from
operation.”
“We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved
the police in this enquiry.”




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

[boedicca]

Whinging spin - and certainly expected.

The Political Scientists got outed. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

:)

[hadit]

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement.

And thus more likely to be truthful. It's just like examining a study's raw data instead of relying on the researcher to give you his interpretation.

[hadit]

Whinging spin - and certainly expected.

The Political Scientists got outed. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

:)

The extreme measures proposed by the GW true believers demand the highest standards of precision, accuracy, and truth. This certainly does not help the cause.

[Pot Roast]

Environmentalism is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face!

[jwreck]

I find it hilarious that someone as mind numbingly stupid as you calls people morons.LOLOILOLIOL!!! Stop! I can't breathe!!!! LOLOLOL

[Corporate Avenger]

LOLOILOLIOL!!! Stop! I can't breathe!!!! LOLOLOL

Did you find the WMD's yet genius?

[Corporate Avenger]

Whinging spin - and certainly expected.

The Political Scientists got outed. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

:)

Um no, you and the rest of the flat Earthers are desperate to deny humans can have any effect on the Earth so that you don't have to take any RESPONSIBILITY for your wasteful lifestyle, or see your beloved corporations have to change their ways.

You discount all the real facts, data, and anything which shows you to be wrong and cling to ridiculous bs put out by those with an agenda. We know what causes the climate to warm, we know what happens when you replace much of the worlds light colored ice with dark ocean water ( you might know too if you ever went to school). We have worldwide glacier retreat, permafrost melt, northward tropical disease migration, and other markers which proves we are having a negative effect on the Earth. Only ignorant far right wing loons believe otherwise, in the future you guys will be looked back at just like the religious maniacs who persecuted scientists in Europe hundreds of years ago, the nuts responsible for the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the flat Earthers, oh and you're the same retards who fell hook, line, and sinker for the WMD charade. Times have changed, yet many people haven't, there are still many amongst us with un-developed minds, aka extreme right wing sociopaths.

[Malcolm Wright]

Just to add my 2 cents... As boe put it, I don't think anyone denies the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling. What I've been saying is bogus is the politically motivated alarmism and fearmongering, such as "It's the end of the world and we're all going to die unless we take drastic measures!!!" That's bull caca, and anyone who understands that the politicians who push that claim the most are the same ones who have a subversive agenda realize that the whole GW thing is just a phony excuse to get the sheeple to fall in line for their agenda, and when the time comes, give up their rights and freedom.

Maybe you can point to an example of such fear mongering?
To my knowledge, nobody prominent has said it is the end of the world or that global warming is going to kill us all. Are you even aware of how much you're misrepresenting things? Perhaps not.

The 'bull caca' is your representation of the the views you oppose. Only once you are able to represent them honestly will you be able to level any accusations against anyone else than yourself. As you know, I'm no longer holding my breath on that.

No, but there ARE some folks out there saying the end is nigh.
They are Christian fundamentalists who believe in the End of Days and what's more, welcome them as the herald of the Second Coming. Do we hear you complaining about those who really preach the world will end and our souls burn in hell lest we repent? No, not a squeak, but its not much of a mystery why.

[Corporate Avenger]

Maybe you can point to an example of such fear mongering?
To my knowledge, nobody prominent has said it is the end of the world or that global warming is going to kill us all. Are you even aware of how much you're misrepresenting things? Perhaps not.

The 'bull caca' is your representation of the the views you oppose. Only once you are able to represent them honestly will you be able to level any accusations against anyone else than yourself. As you know, I'm no longer holding my breath on that.

No, but there ARE some folks out there saying the end is nigh.
They are Christian fundamentalists who believe in the End of Days and what's more, welcome them as the herald of the Second Coming. Do we hear you complaining about those who really preach the world will end and our souls burn in hell lest we repent? No, not a squeak, but its not much of a mystery why.

Ha, yea the fundies who believe in the end times include many powerful Republicans working inside the US government, and Sara Palin who they all adore.

Notice also how they use fear mongering to try to justify their denial of reality by saying that us doing anything about GW will "destroy the economy", when in fact being a technological leader in green tech would be nothing but a huge boon to our economy. And it's kind of strange considering 8 years of Republican rule actually did "destroy the economy".

[fat mike]

They are Christian fundamentalists who believe in the End of Days and what's more, welcome them as the herald of the Second Coming. Do we hear you complaining about those who really preach the world will end and our souls burn in hell lest we repent? No, not a squeak, but its not much of a mystery why.


why would we complain abotu what we believe ourselves to be true?
as to gw-i remain convinced that neither side can know-Gore is certainly profiteering but the summers are bladihot here and theyre worse than before-and reallythe earth getting hotter fits into the end times scenario anyway

[IFF]

questions for deniers that i've posted before

please answer the following 4 questions:
1: Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide
2: Does atmospheric carbon dioxide raise the average global temperature
3: Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4: Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide

[questions courtesy of "Heat: How to stop the planet from burning" by George Monbiot, published by Penguin/Allen Lane, Isbn: 978-0-7139-9923-5. Researched by Dr. Matthew Prescott]

if you can answer no to any one of those 4 questions and back it up with scientific data, i tip my hat to you and congratulate you on the nobel prize for science

[jwreck]

Did you find the WMD's yet genius?Didn't know I was looking for them. And no need to call me genius. Highness will suffice. ;)

[boedicca]

questions for deniers that i've posted before

please answer the following 4 questions:
1: Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide
2: Does atmospheric carbon dioxide raise the average global temperature
3: Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4: Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide

[questions courtesy of "Heat: How to stop the planet from burning" by George Monbiot, published by Penguin/Allen Lane, Isbn: 978-0-7139-9923-5. Researched by Dr. Matthew Prescott]

if you can answer no to any one of those 4 questions and back it up with scientific data, i tip my hat to you and congratulate you on the nobel prize for science



- Are we carbon based life forms?
- Is carbon dioxide part of the natural process involving flora and fauna?
- How much greenhouse gasses are spewed by volcanoes each year and how does this compare to the cumulative amount created by humans?

[boedicca]

Didn't know I was looking for them. And no need to call me genius. Highness will suffice. ;)

Don't be so modest. Use your proper title: Lord High Hawtness.

[DngrMse]

questions for deniers that i've posted before

please answer the following 4 questions:
1: Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide
2: Does atmospheric carbon dioxide raise the average global temperature
3: Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4: Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide

[questions courtesy of "Heat: How to stop the planet from burning" by George Monbiot, published by Penguin/Allen Lane, Isbn: 978-0-7139-9923-5. Researched by Dr. Matthew Prescott]

if you can answer no to any one of those 4 questions and back it up with scientific data, i tip my hat to you and congratulate you on the nobel prize for science

You can't address a complex issue like global climate by playing cute little boolean logic games. Sorry.

Your post is also off topic, and though I can understand your desire to avoid the topic of this thread, I think I'll pose a few questions to you as well.

1. Why are you trying to deflect attention away from clear evidence of fraud, data manipulation, violations of U.S., and UK FOI(A), laws, and subverting the scientific process in order to silence critics?

2. Some of the biggest names in the alarmist camp, (Jones, Briffa, Mann, Amman), have been manipulating their data in order to make things seem worse than they are....while in private they've admitted that the earth stopped warming in 1998, that Mann's hockey stick, and his methodologies are 'crap', and various methods of massaging data for specific publications, and the UN could be accomplished. In light of this, do you believe these men should be subject to investigation, and potentially criminal prosecutions? If not...why? Do you believe, in light of these revelations that the 'science' of AGW is really settled?

[Forthright]

The Communist and Socialist Greenies of this forum won't like the following truths.


I never cease to marvel at the environmental alarmists who create one “crisis” after another using wretchedly bad “science” to support their scams. On Tuesday, November 24, the Global Footprint Network is going to “release new data on the Ecological Footprint of 100 nations and humanity as a whole, and the current ledgers are sobering.”

Well, of course, they’re sobering. Everything the Greens announce is sobering because, as you well know, the oceans are rising, the glaciers and polar caps are melting, we’re running out of oil, every animal on Earth is endangered, incandescent light bulbs and global warming will destroy all life on Earth, yada, yada, yada.

“The figures provide a data-driven look at some of the most pressing issues facing humanity, from climate change to equitable distribution of resources.”

Is the “equitable distribution of resources” the same as Barack Obama’s “redistribution of wealth”? Is this shorthand of every liberal’s wet dream, communism? Oh, yeah. Been there, seen it, don’t want any part of it. After giving communism a try for over seventy years, the Soviet Union imploded because it doesn’t work, never has, and never will.

After Chairman Mao Zedong introduced communism to China, his various programs managed to kill off several millions through starvation until his death allowed a revision toward capitalism that initiated the transformation that holds out vastly improved lives for its 1.3 billion citizens.

However, according to the Global Footprint Network, “Humanity now requires the resources it would take almost one and a half planets to sustainably produce, according to figures to be released.”

The Greens have an established pattern. They use bogus computer modeling to conjure up scads of “data” that take years to debunk and dispute. In the meantime, billions are wasted on their schemes.

This new hogwash conveniently debuts just before the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen in December. The many delegates will wine and dine their way through tons of champagne, caviar, and other delicacies while trying to convince everyone that the Earth is doomed unless virtually all industrial activity is ended

They will warn that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are responsible for “global warming,” but there is NO global warming beyond what the sun provides and CO2 plays no role whatever in climate change.

The phony “carbon footprint” ignores the fact that carbon compounds form the basis for all known life on Earth!

Their bogus “carbon footprints” ignore the fact that CO2 is vital to life because it is to all vegetation what oxygen is to all animals. It is food! More CO2 is better than less because it would provide for more abundant crop yields and healthier forests, and would reduce the spread of deserts.

The “carbon footprint” and the mountains of phony data built around it provides the Global Footprint Network the ability to announce that “The new numbers also reveal a growing disparity between those countries with the largest Ecological Footprints per capita and those with the smallest.”
This is their way of saying that nations that produce more food and more commodities have an unfair advantage over those that do not.

It ignores the fact that “poor” nations are famous for despotism, oppression, and corruption, none of which have anything to do with whether they have abundant resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal. It has everything to do with encouraging class or tribal warfare, religious strife, and all the ills common to humanity.

The key to spotting the Big Green Lie is the word “sustainability.”

Sustainability is a subterfuge for the destruction of property rights, a concept so essential to success in America that it is protected by the Constitution.

Wherever you see the word “sustainability,” you know that the Greens are emphasizing “renewable energy” (solar and wind) which cannot begin to compare with oil, natural gas, and coal. Renewable energy is responsible for a mere one percent of all electricity generated in the United States.

There is little evidence that the Earth is running out of oil or other sources of energy. Oil not only provides for transportation, but is the basis for fertilizers and other beneficial chemicals that ensure more crop yield to feed humans and livestock. It has a thousand other uses as well. Coal is so abundant that its use is calculated in centuries.

In short, the Greens want to impose the most stupid and evil standards and restrictions on human life. They would drag humanity back to an age when horses and oxen were the modes of transportation and means of agriculture.

This is the goal of the United Nations Climate Change Conference and its treaty to impose a One World Order with its incumbent oppressive government structure to deprive its victims of privacy, dignity, and initiative. And, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, of life itself.

The “carbon footprint,” along with “global warming,” should be consigned to the dustbin of failed and false economic and schemes known as socialism and communism. They are a synonym for suffering and death.

http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5938/1/The-Global-Carbon-Footprint-Scam/Page1.html
The Global Carbon Footprint Scam

[Cherry]

They'll follow the script:

- Attack the author of the article
- Attack the website on which is posted
- Accuse of us just spreading talking points

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Without even bothering to read the articles, too.

I wont do any of these three but rather argue that the few emails I have read while to the uneducated would, when taken out of the context of an email thread, appear to support the anti GW side. Now I dont know if the emails are all real and I dont have the perspective to evaluate the single statement in an email thread if I havent read the rest of the thread. But I am sure that conspiracy nuts will read all kinds of stuff into these stolen posted emails.

I still think the reality of GW is undeniable from a scientific perspective but I still have huge questions as to if we can do anything about it. I do think systems like cap and trade are just plain dumb. I am one of those who would argue to throw out the tax system and replace it with a flat tax and if you want to base it on carbon footprint as opposed to Income thats fine too. But not both. I do believe if we can achieve cost saving by say increasing MPG in autos that is a good thing to do in any case. If you really want to reduce energy use simply make it cost more that will work all the BS government regulation will not. Reducing pollution is a good thing to do regardless of GW.

[Dick Tator]

I still think the reality of GW is undeniable from a scientific perspective

How convenient. Let’s ignore Crater Glacier on Mount
St. Helens, which is not only growing, but is now larger
than it was prior to the 1980 eruption that entirely
obliterated it.

How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the Nisqually
Glacier on Mount Rainier is growing. Let’s ignore the
most continuously monitored glacier in the northern
hemisphere. How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the glaciers
are growing on Washington’s Mount Shuksan.

How convenient. Let’s limit our discussion to the
continental U.S. That way we can ignore the glaciers
in Alaska that are advancing a third of a mile per year!

How convenient. Let’s make sure to study only the ones that are retreating. And forget to mention that it's normal for them to retreat, while others grow. Musta learned that trick from Al Gore himself.

Let me see if I understand this. The glaciers on Mount
Shasta are growing (one has doubled in size) … but they’re
going to be gone by 2100?

How convenient. Let’s restrict our conversation to
mountain glaciers. Let’s ignore the East Antarctic Ice
Sheet, which covers almost five million square miles, and
is growing. Growing! The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is
almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's
glaciers put together, which means that 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing.

[jwreck]

I can't believe all you deniers. Didn't you see Day After Tomorrow? You just want to see NYC flooded then frozen. Haters.

[IFF]

i don'#t have time to answer the other questions now but i will answer this one as i answer it on another thread last week



- How much greenhouse gasses are spewed by volcanoes each year and how does this compare to the cumulative amount created by humans?



Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#effects

but with your other two questions, i would like to know what you aim to prove? that humans aren't responsible for global warming?

[DngrMse]

I wont do any of these three but rather argue that the few emails I have read while to the uneducated would, when taken out of the context of an email thread, appear to support the anti GW side.

Even in the most convoluted of email threads, I've never once in my life asked my colleagues to delete emails subject to a FOIA request, and I don't see how an innocent explanation is possible, considering Jones' admission in an earlier email that he would delete data, rather than produce as part of an FOI request...and is it any small coincidence that CRU managed to 'lose' over 100 years of direct temperature measurements after they were demanded by several parties via FOI requests?

[BooRadley]

How convenient. Let’s ignore Crater Glacier on Mount
St. Helens, which is not only growing, but is now larger
than it was prior to the 1980 eruption that entirely
obliterated it.

How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the Nisqually
Glacier on Mount Rainier is growing. Let’s ignore the
most continuously monitored glacier in the northern
hemisphere. How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the glaciers
are growing on Washington’s Mount Shuksan.

How convenient. Let’s limit our discussion to the
continental U.S. That way we can ignore the glaciers
in Alaska that are advancing a third of a mile per year!

How convenient. Let’s make sure to study only the ones that are retreating. And forget to mention that it's normal for them to retreat, while others grow. Musta learned that trick from Al Gore himself.

Let me see if I understand this. The glaciers on Mount
Shasta are growing (one has doubled in size) … but they’re
going to be gone by 2100?

How convenient. Let’s restrict our conversation to
mountain glaciers. Let’s ignore the East Antarctic Ice
Sheet, which covers almost five million square miles, and
is growing. Growing! The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is
almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's
glaciers put together, which means that 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing.

http://www.iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm

[boedicca]

I can't believe all you deniers. Didn't you see Day After Tomorrow? You just want to see NYC flooded then frozen. Haters.


Actually, we want to see Washington DC flooded.

That would be Great!

[boedicca]

but with your other two questions, i would like to know what you aim to prove? that humans aren't responsible for global warming?


Here are the points I am making (and Forthright's post above makes them in more detail):

Carbon is a necessary ingredient of life - we are carbon based life forms. Carbon Dioxide is a part of the life sustaining system which animals and plants support together. CO2 is not some foreign, toxic poison - it is natural.

The planet has gone through cycles of warming and cooling far more extreme than the recent blips, without humans being in existence. This GW nonsense is just yet another scare tactic seized upon by the Statists to control our lives. They are anti-Human power seekers who nobody with an ability to think rationally would trust. Period. End of Story.

[boedicca]

Even in the most convoluted of email threads, I've never once in my life asked my colleagues to delete emails subject to a FOIA request, and I don't see how an innocent explanation is possible, considering Jones' admission in an earlier email that he would delete data, rather than produce as part of an FOI request...and is it any small coincidence that CRU managed to 'lose' over 100 years of direct temperature measurements after they were demanded by several parties via FOI requests?


That is all we need to know - they conspired and planned to hide and destroy data. If the data really supported their theory, they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

[Dick Tator]

http://www.iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm

Actually, I got it from http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/... where they got it from, I don't know. :)

[Corporate Avenger]

The Communist and Socialist Greenies of this forum won't like the following truths.


LOL..

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1042

[Corporate Avenger]

Here are the points I am making (and Forthright's post above makes them in more detail):

Carbon is a necessary ingredient of life - we are carbon based life forms. Carbon Dioxide is a part of the life sustaining system which animals and plants support together. CO2 is not some foreign, toxic poison - it is natural.

The planet has gone through cycles of warming and cooling far more extreme than the recent blips, without humans being in existence. This GW nonsense is just yet another scare tactic seized upon by the Statists to control our lives. They are anti-Human power seekers who nobody with an ability to think rationally would trust. Period. End of Story.

:bowrofl::bowrofl:

[hadit]

No, but there ARE some folks out there saying the end is nigh.
They are Christian fundamentalists who believe in the End of Days and what's more, welcome them as the herald of the Second Coming. Do we hear you complaining about those who really preach the world will end and our souls burn in hell lest we repent? No, not a squeak, but its not much of a mystery why.

They're not advocating massively higher taxes or energy use restrictions on everyone. Not much of a threat there.

[hadit]

:bowrofl::bowrofl:

Anti-intellectual faith believer. Wrong about everything, yet stubbornly won't accept it.

[Forthright]

LOL..

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1042

exxonsecrets.org :rolleyes:........ Ahttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/gplogo.gifProject :rolleyes:

From the linked page......

Adjunct Scholar, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Founder, National Anxiety Center (www.anxietycenter.com). Founder, Caruba Organization (www.caruba.com). Board of Trustees, American Policy Foundation.

Public Relations expert with more than thirty years experience, specializes in "crisis PR" for chemical and other highly polluting industries. Caruba believes global warming is "the ultimate scare campaign" and the "true agenda" of people concerned with the impacts of global warming is "global governance." (http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm) He has also called the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "The biggest liars on earth." (http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/caruba/caruba_011.htm)

In addition to his long career as a PR flack, as a former reporter and editor, Caruba considers himself a journalist, regularly writing opinion pieces for a variety of sources This means Caruba is in the position to impact the news from both ends, as a "journalist" and as a PR news-content creator. According to Caruba, he has done PR work for "leading corporations, trade associations, import firms, ...chemical and pharmaceutical companies, think tanks, trade associations, service providers, publishers, authors, and others." http://www.caruba.com/credentials.htm Mr. Caruba's 2003 book "Warning Signs" was published by Merril Press, a small right wing company run by gun rights zealot, Alan Gottlieb.

"Public Relations Counselor & Editorial Consultant"

From http://alancaruba.com/

Best known these days as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs", both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington.

His archived commentaries are posted on The National Anxiety Center (http://www.anxietycenter.com/) they represent the Center’s purpose as a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” designed to influence public opinion and policy.

Caruba, a longtime book reviewer, also posts a monthly report on new fiction and non-fiction at http://www.bookviews.com/ The site recommends around sixty books each month on topics that include history, biographies, health, business, parenting, books for children and younger readers, and new novels. Caruba is a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle.

Initially a fulltime journalist, Caruba is a veteran public relations counselor who is often asked by members of the news media to comment on news involving PR issues. A longtime member of the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science Writers, Caruba maintains an Internet site for his professional practice at http://www.caruba.com/

A former lifelong resident of Maplewood, NJ, Caruba now lives in the Gaslight Commons in neighboring South Orange. In his former career as a journalist, he was the editor of a weekly, East Orange Record, and as a columnist and feature writer for the Morris County Daily Record. He has been a contributor to many consumer and trade magazines.


CA, I liked those featured Caruba quotes from that site you presented and thanks for giving me direct reasons to dispute you again. :nice:

[lily]

Maybe you can point to an example of such fear mongering?
To my knowledge, nobody prominent has said it is the end of the world or that global warming is going to kill us all. Are you even aware of how much you're misrepresenting things? Perhaps not.

Wow, lol. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would deny or play dumb that fearmongering has been going on. I'll bold the pertinent words for you.





"I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency - a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth."
-Al Gore


"Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming."
-Al Gore, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005


"The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences."
-Al Gore


"Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc: it is us."
-Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It


“I'm involved in a different kind of campaign myself — to make sure that the climate crisis is the number one issue on the agenda of candidates in both parties”
-Al Gore, 'The Assault on Reason' in America" on Things Considered at NPR (25 May 2007)


"Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."
-Al Gore, address at New York University Law School, September 18 2006


"The insistence on complete certainty about the full details of global warming--the most serious threat we have ever faced--is actually an effort to avoid facing the awful, uncomfortable truth: that we must act boldly, decisively, comprehensively, and quickly, even before we know every last detail about the crisis."
- Al Gore, Earth In the Balance


"If we did not take action to solve this crisis, it could indeed threaten the future of human civilization. That sounds shrill. It sounds hard to accept. I believe it's deadly accurate. But again, we can solve it."
-Al Gore



"The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative."
– Al Gore


No, no fear mongering there. :rolleyes: Btw, Al Gore even admits to the fear mongering, as you can read in the following quote:





"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
-Al Gore source (http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/)

___________________________


"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe”
- Barack Obama


"All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."
- Barack Obama, speech, Apr. 3, 2006


___________________________

"Avoiding a planet-changing global warming catastrophe is why we urgently need to transform the global energy system to a carbon-neutral one. The clock is ticking. Absent the fossil fuel greenhouse this transformation could be deferred to the 22nd century or later."
-Martin Hoffert, interview, Aug. 22, 2007


"So what if some don’t believe in global warming? They’re wrong. Survival of high tech civilization is at stake. Time to stop dithering and get serious about policies that could make a difference."
- Martin Hoffert, interview, Aug. 22, 2007


"Scientists ... out on a limb in the face of a peer group which holds a robust counter-view, have ultimately been proven correct on many occasions during the history of science. One can think of Galileo, and even Einstein. But the stakes are a little different with global warming. The future of civilization, perhaps even of life on Earth, did not potentially hinge on Galileo or Einstein being right."
- Jeremy K. Legget, The Carbon War


"The goal, the urgent necessity, is to reduce global warming pollution in the atmosphere enough to pull us back from the precipice before the changes in earth's ecosystems and weather patterns become so rapid and so vast that we will no longer be able to reverse the catastrophe.”
-Fred Krupp, Earth: The Sequel


"Global warming must be seen as an economic and security threat."
-Kofi Annan, interview, Jun. 23, 2009


"We are in a race against time. Newspaper and magazine articles, television specials, and film documentaries all predict a terrible future: global warming will bring to the world melting ice sheets, flooded coastal regions, powerful hurricanes, droughts, and dislocated populations. In a recent study, the Pentagon described the famine, widespread rioting, and even war we can expect as nations defend their dwindling food, water, and energy supplies.”
- Brian Dumaine, The Plot to Save the Planet


"I'd say the chances are about 50-50 that humanity will be extinct or nearly extinct within 50 years. Weapons of mass destruction, disease, I mean this global warming is scaring the living daylights out of me."
-Ted Turner


"Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked,

"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers .... Climate change is a threat to our national security."

Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project source (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/kerry_panel_loo.html)


(global warming is) "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid,"
"global warming is accelerating."
-AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein


Even using children in commercials to promote the 'sky is falling' view of global warming.
v/ghUVT_Z5oDs&hl=en_GB&fs

And my favorite one. From Obama's "science czar" John Holdren, as documented by Paul Elrich:




"As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020."

- Paul Ehrlich, The Machinery of Nature, 1986, p. 274
(If I'm not mistaken, Holdren stood by this quote up until pretty recently, saying that it is still possible... I don't remember if he was talking about GW or GC. It's hard to keep track.)




The 'bull caca' is your representation of the the views you oppose. Only once you are able to represent them honestly will you be able to level any accusations against anyone else than yourself. As you know, I'm no longer holding my breath on that.

Oh, give me a freakin break. Right, no fear mongering going on, and no one pushing the 'sky is falling unless we take drastic measures' viewpoint. :rolleyes: Their words speak for themselves. And as I said, Gore even admitted to 'over-representation' to, for his own purposes of getting people to move into action.

What worries me far more than any bogus GW scenario is that more and more, it appears that many on the left are blind, as your post shows when you play all innocent and shocked that I said that some people fear monger in regard to this issue. And what also concerns me is that some people seem to be really bad at discerning truth from lies. We didn't have the internet 35 years ago, but it makes me wonder if some of you would've been "fighting the good fight" against the "global cooling" (ice age) that some these same crackpots (like Elrich and others) predicted in the 70's.

Look behind the words, look at what kind of governments these people want. They are the same people that want to drastically change our entire system, some of them are globalists, some are marxists, but most of them are people with a political agenda, and what better way to bring about their agenda than to scare the peasants into beleving we all need to give up our rights and freedoms and private property, for the "good" of humanity. I'm sure people like Stalin, Mao and other dictators also used phrases like that to manipulate people into their idea of a collectivist utopia. The most ironic part of all, is the leaders who want everyone else to be poor and unfree will, no doubt, continue to live like kings. And probably laughing at you all, for being so easily manipulated.

[fat mike]

i don'#t have time to answer the other questions now but i will answer this one as i answer it on another thread last week






http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#effects

but with your other two questions, i would like to know what you aim to prove? that humans aren't responsible for global warming?

if they prove there is mischief they think thats adequate-there are catholic priests that molest altar boys-but that doesn't impugn the whole church-personally i think Gore is a cockroach-and im not sure how "critical" the situation is-but i like you look at the simple truth-if were sending black smoke into the atmosphere-it doesn't matter that the smoke is a naturally occurring chemical-i mean when i burn food in my apartment it's hard to breathe-it's a problem
they havent dispense with your argument-let them giigle and wet themselves over these jerk scientists they still havent won the point

[Malcolm Wright]

Hey Lily... sorry you felt you needed to go to so much trouble posting all those quotes over your misunderstanding the plain English I posted to you.

I never said there was no attempt to elicit fear. I said your description of that was an exagerated one, as nobody is claiming we are all going to die, or that it will be the end of the world.

That remains true. None of the quotes you offered are as extreme as your representation of them. A danger to civilization is not the same thing as stating categorically that we're all going to die from that danger.

Referring to an extinction event of the magnitude of a prior extinction event is a comparison, which is either truthful or not. Would you like to dispute it on the basis of fact, or would you like to stick to your current tack of just misrepresenting it?

Your parents no doubt taught you a healthy fear of fire, because as a child you were not aware of what a seemingly innocent little match stick could do. Were they fear mongering? If your father tells you that if you play with matches, you could burn down the house and hurt a lot of people, would you be in your right to accuse him of fear-mongering?

Of course not. As a child, you did not know the seriousness of playing with matches and it was his duty to give you a sense of it.

As individuals, most of us do not understand the seriousness of our gestures in terms of repercussions on the environment and I'm thankful there are people out there trying to give us a sense of it.

My point to you was clearly one of degree: you said people are saying we're all going to die. They're not. They are, in the most extreme cases, alluding to the most extreme possibilities that spring from anthropogenic climate change. That's what they're supposed to do. Would you want a doctor to not tell you about the most serious consequences of smoking?

And if you're stupid enough to smoke your entire life anyway, and don't die of lung cancer - would you really be stupid enough to tell other's they can do the same and not suffer ill consequences either?

I'm sorry Lily, but part of you is really immature. This is just a case of 'grow up and accept that some people have a better understanding of certain aspects of the world than you do'. Learn from them instead of knee-jerking against their warnings.

[DngrMse]

^^^^^^^^^^Damage Control Mode^^^^^^^^^^^

Lily showed your sorry ass up, so now you want to argue semantics.

[TrailHiker]

Maybe you can point to an example of such fear mongering?
German scientists warned last year that sea levels will rise one meter this century alone, and that only by dramatically lowering greenhouse emissions by 2050 and CO2 emissions entirely by the end of the century will we be able to slow the global temperature from rising



To my knowledge, nobody prominent has said it is the end of the world or that global warming is going to kill us all. Are you even aware of how much you're misrepresenting things? Perhaps not. Your knowledge is very limited:


5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming

5. Spread of disease
As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated.

4. Warmer waters and more hurricanes
As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005

3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves
Although some areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer serious droughts and heat waves. Africa will receive the worst of it, with more severe droughts also expected in Europe. Water is already a dangerously rare commodity in Africa, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming will exacerbate the conditions and could lead to conflicts and war.

2. Economic consequences
Most of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these

1. Polar ice caps melting
The ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.

First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.

Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English – make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!

Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.

Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.




http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276

[Malcolm Wright]

^^^^^^^^^^Damage Control Mode^^^^^^^^^^^

Lily showed your sorry ass up, so now you want to argue semantics.

:) Your comment is appreciated.
Care to actually argue a point?

Right, I thought not. That's the true measure of effectiveness I'm afraid, and you're coming up short.
As for semantics, I doubt you know what that really means, as it does not apply to the not so subtle difference between what Lily first claimed, and the subsequent quotes she provided to back those claims up.
She switched her claim from being that climate change is sold as being the end of the world, and something that will kill us all, in to saying there is fear-mongering, and that people are making strong statements about the worse case scenarios of climate change. Never mind that the statements are factual representations of the worse case scenarios... Its fear-mongering!

My points concerning how we teach children to respect fire, and how doctors talk to patients about the dangers of smoking apply perfectly. I'm not surprised you have nothing to say about them.

[fat mike]

:) Your comment is appreciated.
Care to actually argue a point?

Right, I thought not. That's the true measure of effectiveness I'm afraid, and you're coming up short.
As for semantics, I doubt you know what that really means, as it does not apply to the not so subtle difference between what Lily first claimed, and the subsequent quotes she provided to back those claims up.
She switched her claim from being that climate change is sold as being the end of the world, and something that will kill us all, in to saying there is fear-mongering, and that people are making strong statements about the worse case scenarios of climate change. Never mind that the statements are factual representations of the worse case scenarios... Its fear-mongering!

My points concerning how we teach children to respect fire, and how doctors talk to patients about the dangers of smoking apply perfectly. I'm not surprised you have nothing to say about them.

oooh i want a turn trolling malcolm!! you prlly forget which country youre in and drive on the wrong side of the road!:mad:

[boedicca]

Look behind the words, look at what kind of governments these people want. They are the same people that want to drastically change our entire system, some of them are globalists, some are marxists, but most of them are people with a political agenda, and what better way to bring about their agenda than to scare the peasants into beleving we all need to give up our rights and freedoms and private property, for the "good" of humanity. I'm sure people like Stalin, Mao and other dictators also used phrases like that to manipulate people into their idea of a collectivist utopia. The most ironic part of all, is the leaders who want everyone else to be poor and unfree will, no doubt, continue to live like kings. And probably laughing at you all, for being so easily manipulated.



Every society has had its witch doctors that try to make everyone fear the Big Bogey Man so they can extract alms and protection spells. The smart people realize its a con and keep said witch doctors on the fringe. They only become dangerous if they gain real power over other peoples lives and can punish anyone they see as Blashphemous/Seeing Through Their Con.

Goru's big sense of urgency is due to wanting to cash out as much as possible before his scam is completely discredited.

[fat mike]

Every society has had its witch doctors that try to make everyone fear the Big Bogey Man so they can extract alms and protection spells. The smart people realize its a con and keep said witch doctors on the fringe. They only become dangerous if they gain real power over other peoples lives and can punish anyone they see as Blashphemous/Seeing Through Their Con.

Goru's big sense of urgency is due to wanting to cash out as much as possible before his scam is completely discredited.

gore is a loser-but smoke isnt good

[lily]

As for semantics, I doubt you know what that really means, as it does not apply to the not so subtle difference between what Lily first claimed, and the subsequent quotes she provided to back those claims up.
She switched her claim from being that climate change is sold as being the end of the world, and something that will kill us all, in to saying there is fear-mongering, and that people are making strong statements about the worse case scenarios of climate change. Never mind that the statements are factual representations of the worse case scenarios... Its fear-mongering!



DngrMse is absolutely right - you're trying to fall back on semantics (in a very Clintonesque way, I might add) to *innocently* act as if you didn't get my main point, when you know very well what the point was.

I shouldn't have to spell everything out, as if I'm speaking to a learning-disabled child. The point is, there is politically motivated alarmism and fearmongering. Obviously not everyone in the GW camp is using extreme language, some are more alarmist than others, but if you read between the lines, there are many who are implying that if something is not done, then it could mean a huge, cataclysmic disaster for the planet or mankind. And of course, as some of the quotes show, there are some that aren't even implying that, they are outright saying that.

If you agree with that, then obviously that's why you wouldn't consider that fearmongering.

[Malcolm Wright]

oooh i want a turn trolling malcolm!! you prlly forget which country youre in and drive on the wrong side of the road!:mad:

:)

Hasn't happened to me yet but it might start happening as I get older... something to keep a look out for

[Malcolm Wright]

DngrMse is absolutely right - you're trying to fall back on semantics (in a very Clintonesque way, I might add) to *innocently* act as if you didn't get my main point, when you know very well what the point was.

I shouldn't have to spell everything out, as if I'm speaking to a learning-disabled child. The point is, there is politically motivated alarmism and fearmongering. Obviously not everyone in the GW camp is using extreme language, some are more alarmist than others, but if you read between the lines, there are many who are implying that if something is not done, then it could mean a huge, cataclysmic disaster for the planet or mankind.

If you agree with that, then obviously that's why you wouldn't consider that fearmongering.

What you never quite managed to understand is that its not just a matter of each of our opinions. No more than if you go see a doctor and disagree with him that you have cancer. What are the odds that you are better placed to know than he is? They are not in your favor.

I bolded the word 'could' above, because that statement is TRUE. Cliamte change COULD indeed mean a huge, cataclysmic disaster for the planet and mankind. If you think it couldn't be, then you are just plain wrong, not just stubborn and opinionated.

The level-headed people on both sides recognize that we don't know enough to say with certainty how much of a problem our contribution is to the trend. You just showed once again that you're not one of those level-headed people, since you think a statement alerting to the possibility of extreme consequences is merely fear-mongering. Face it Lily: that's exactly what you tried to sell me. Talking freely about the distinct possibility that anthropogenic climate change will lead to disaster, is fear mongering, rather than a statement of fact for you. Which means you rule out even the possibility.

I see we'll probably fall into the familiar pattern of you completely and repeatedly ignoring the examples which hurt your position, but hey, it might be fun for a while. So I repeat: when a doctor says the fact that you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day will greatly increase the likelihood of dying from lung cancer, gasping for air for weeks and morphined up to bear the pain, is he fear-mongering, or merely trying to make you conscious of what our best science can tell you about smoking? Are you able to quote my former post, and respond in detail to the points about smoking, and playing with matches?

Or would you rather refer to nebulous global conspiracies about political interests to push us towards greener technologies? I'll play dumb for a minute and ignore the fact that your present response already tells us what you'd rather do. Its the usual: be damned with the facts, lets talk conspiracy!

[lily]

Every society has had its witch doctors that try to make everyone fear the Big Bogey Man so they can extract alms and protection spells. The smart people realize its a con and keep said witch doctors on the fringe. They only become dangerous if they gain real power over other peoples lives and can punish anyone they see as Blashphemous/Seeing Through Their Con.

Goru's big sense of urgency is due to wanting to cash out as much as possible before his scam is completely discredited.

He definitely has profited from the GW scare tactics. But I don't know if that's his only motivation. I think he is one of those who wants to take us towards their one-world 'utopia' (dystopia). Of course, it also, apparently, is a very nice meal ticket for him and others.

[Malcolm Wright]

He definitely has profited from the GW scare tactics. But I don't know if that's his only motivation. I think he is one of those who wants to take us towards their one-world 'utopia' (dystopia). Of course, it also, apparently, is a very nice meal ticket for him and others.

Nebulous conspiracy.
Vaguely formed opinion that its all part of moving towards a one-world dystopia. Never takes you long to abandon the facts in the discussion, and serve up a nice, vague opinion...

I remember when I was a kid, I sometimes thought the things adults would say I had to do were just power-mongering. Why should I brush my teeth? Why should I share with others? I remember as kids we would sometimes mope over how adults just wanted to make our lives miserable - if I had known the world dystopia, I'd have used it.

Grow up.

[Java_man]

Wow, lol. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would deny or play dumb that fearmongering has been going on. I'll bold the pertinent words for you.

Is this "fearmongering" ?


Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1

[Java_man]

He definitely has profited from the GW scare tactics. But I don't know if that's his only motivation. I think he is one of those who wants to take us towards their one-world 'utopia' (dystopia). Of course, it also, apparently, is a very nice meal ticket for him and others.

Hahahaha .. talk about 'fearmongering'

[Malcolm Wright]

Oh, and lest we forget - though the fear-mongering climate change messengers are alerting to the POSSIBILITY that human industry will catastrophically affect climate, Christians are ASSERTING that we will burn in hell lest we accept Christ as our savior.

That's true fear-mongering, but I guess that'll be another thing you'll be dancing around for the next few posts before we both tire of it.

[Malcolm Wright]

Is this "fearmongering" ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1

If Lily has to choose between paying some attention to facts, or calling them fear-mongering so she can ignore them - I think you know what option she's going to choose.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I see we'll probably fall into the familiar pattern of you completely and repeatedly ignoring the examples which hurt your position, but hey, it might be fun for a while. So I repeat: when a doctor says the fact that you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day will greatly increase the likelihood of dying from lung cancer, gasping for air for weeks and morphined up to bear the pain, is he fear-mongering, or merely trying to make you conscious of what our best science can tell you about smoking?This is seriously flawed. A doctor has seen many instances of cancer, has tons of repeatable, verifiable data and has witnessed the effects. Climatologists have none of these things.

[lily]

Hahahaha .. talk about 'fearmongering'

I'm just a regular person, and I'm not using some "crisis" to subvert the foundation of our country and bring about drastic changes.

So you're comparing apples and oranges. Good try though!

[Malcolm Wright]

This is seriously flawed. A doctor has seen many instances of cancer, has tons of repeatable, verifiable data and has witnessed the effects. Climatologists have none of these things.

You are right: climate science and oncology are not equal in terms of maturity.

However the inherent logic remains. Climate scientists are scientists, and those of them who point to possibilities are merely reflecting the best of human understanding on a matter. Lily is not a scientist - in fact she doesn't have a clue about the matter and actively avoids learning about it because she has already decided its all 'bull caca'. As such, she is a far cry from reflecting the best human understanding of the matter.

[Java_man]

Oh, and lest we forget - though the fear-mongering climate change messengers are alerting to the POSSIBILITY that human industry will catastrophically affect climate, Christians are asserting that we WILL burn in hell lest we accept Christ as our savior.

That's true fear-mongering, but I guess that'll be another thing you'll be dancing around for the next few posts before we both tire of it.

Yes .. and lets not forget about the greatbogeyman manchurian Obama who will enslave us all to build his tyrannical stalinist empire replete with death panels and jack-booted acorn schutzstaffe squadrons

[Java_man]

I'm just a regular person, and I'm not using some "crisis" to subvert the foundation of our country and bring about drastic changes.

So you're comparing apples and oranges. Good try though!

"subvert the foundation of our country ??? " LOL

you cannot help yourself ... can you ?

[lily]

Nebulous conspiracy.
Vaguely formed opinion that its all part of moving towards a one-world dystopia. Never takes you long to abandon the facts in the discussion, and serve up a nice, vague opinion...

I remember when I was a kid, I sometimes thought the things adults would say I had to do were just power-mongering. Why should I brush my teeth? Why should I share with others? I remember as kids we would sometimes mope over how adults just wanted to make our lives miserable - if I had known the world dystopia, I'd have used it.

Grow up.

lol, sorry but I think that's a silly analogy. There is plenty of evidence that there are people who want global government (that is based on ideas that are very contrary to the founding principles of the US) and I'm not talking about regular people, but those with actual power to move us in that direction.

Personally I think that one would have to be living in a cave (or perhaps busy watching soap operas or something) for the last decade or so to not notice that anything like that is happening. Either that, or something in them actually agrees with that agenda, so maybe some of you don't see it as anything bad or subversive.

Anyway, that is a topic for another thread. And I'm going out to dinner now, so i'll leave it at that for now.

[Java_man]

This is seriously flawed. A doctor has seen many instances of cancer, has tons of repeatable, verifiable data and has witnessed the effects. Climatologists have none of these things.

Total Baloney

Do you have a clue how much climate data has been collected or how much has already happened in the last 50 years ?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Do you have any idea how much of that data has been manipulated? The plant is billions of years old. Do you really think 50 years is significant?

[CKIRK]

Absolutely hilarious thread.

One for the ages.

Malcolm has outdone himself and is in major desparation mode. Although what can one expect when a huge pillar of the religion of leftism has just been exposed for what it is? It's pretty clear that Lily is inside Malcolms head because she's handed him his ass.. again....and he doesn't like it.
His psychotic continued insulting anaylisis of Lily is some of the most pathetic and cheap garbage written here. Newsflash! Lily isn't the topic. Lily grasps the topic just fine. It seems that Malcolm is the one who doesn't grasp the topic.
Good Work Lily. :nice:

[fat mike]

It's pretty clear that Lily is inside Malcolms head because she's handed him his ass

you realize this is an indirect way of saying malcolms ass is in his head?? dont be so mean!!!

[DngrMse]

Total Baloney

Do you have a clue how much climate data has been collected or how much has already happened in the last 50 years ?

And do YOU have any clue how much of that data was fudged, adjusted, or manipulated to shore up a given point of view? That's the issue here, is'nt it? Four of the biggest names in the alarmist camp, and one of the most well known climate research centers has been engaged in outright fraud...among many other things. How many students have learned their trades from these professors? How many learned to cheat, and lie in support of a theory?

The alarmists are making extraordinary claims....and telling us that we have to change the way we live, the way our economies work, even how much of our own money we can keep....and that requires extraordinary proof. And they've made it clear we can't trust their proof, because they admit to massaging the supporting data to support their beliefs, instead of searching for, and describing dispassionately, the truth.

[DngrMse]

However the inherent logic remains. Climate scientists are scientists, and those of them who point to possibilities are merely reflecting the best of human understanding on a matter.


I was not aware that the "best of human understanding" required falsifying data.



Lily is not a scientist - in fact she doesn't have a clue about the matter and actively avoids learning about it because she has already decided its all 'bull caca'. As such, she is a far cry from reflecting the best human understanding of the matter.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Instead of belittling those who excercise a bit of caution, and refuse to spend their two dollars on a bottle of snake oil, you'd be better serving your faith by convincing people that yes, extraordinary proof, free from the taint that Mann, Briffa, Amman, and Jones have brought to the table, does in fact exist.

[Pappy&Me]

Well the way some are breeding now we will need all the extra farmland we can get . I bet its fertile under the glaziers .

[boedicca]

He definitely has profited from the GW scare tactics. But I don't know if that's his only motivation. I think he is one of those who wants to take us towards their one-world 'utopia' (dystopia). Of course, it also, apparently, is a very nice meal ticket for him and others.

His net worth has increased from approximately $2M to more than $100M by getting the government to pump money into his start up ventures.

The math is quite revealing.

[boedicca]

Do you have any idea how much of that data has been manipulated? The plant is billions of years old. Do you really think 50 years is significant?

They also only have a few hundred collection points around the globe, many of which are highly unreliable (i.e., temperature measuring devices set on tarmacs). The sampling method itself is suspect.

[boedicca]

And do YOU have any clue how much of that data was fudged, adjusted, or manipulated to shore up a given point of view? That's the issue here, is'nt it? Four of the biggest names in the alarmist camp, and one of the most well known climate research centers has been engaged in outright fraud...among many other things. How many students have learned their trades from these professors? How many learned to cheat, and lie in support of a theory?

The alarmists are making extraordinary claims....and telling us that we have to change the way we live, the way our economies work, even how much of our own money we can keep....and that requires extraordinary proof. And they've made it clear we can't trust their proof, because they admit to massaging the supporting data to support their beliefs, instead of searching for, and describing dispassionately, the truth.



It's rather ironic that Enron execs went to jail for cooking the books when the result of their fraud affected a tiny portion of the people that the GW hoax will damage if Cap&Tax is passed.

[boedicca]

I just ordered Christopher Booker's "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?".

For nearly 20 years, from Al Gore to President Obama, they have been intoning to us that 'the science is settled'. But as ever more scientists from outside the IPCC's self- selected 'magic circle' now maintain, it has never been more obvious that this simply isn't true.

No one has put this better than Professor Lindzen, one of the world's leading climatologists, when he wrote: 'Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XhjhvqM6

[hadit]

Oh, and lest we forget - though the fear-mongering climate change messengers are alerting to the POSSIBILITY that human industry will catastrophically affect climate, Christians are ASSERTING that we will burn in hell lest we accept Christ as our savior.

But that's not all they're doing, and you are very aware of that being true, so don't be disingenuous. They are also recommending MASSIVE increases in the cost of living, and MASSIVE increases in governments' power over the everyday lives of every living human on the planet, and powers that be in government are gleefully jumping on the bandwagon, because there is little they like more than opportunities to control ever larger portions of the economy and everyday lives. That's fear-mongering with teeth, and makes it extremely vital that they be held to the absolutely highest standards of veracity.


That's true fear-mongering, but I guess that'll be another thing you'll be dancing around for the next few posts before we both tire of it.

True fear-mongering has to have an element of mistruth. You burning in hell without the sacrfice of the Christ is true. Nor do Christians have the ability or inclination to force you at gunpoint to financially support their cause.

[DngrMse]

Monckton's take on all this:


Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/

[IFF]

they destroyed all the data, yet didn't destroy the e-mails discussing destroying the data?

that doesn't make alot of sense

[DngrMse]

they destroyed all the data, yet didn't destroy the e-mails discussing destroying the data?

that doesn't make alot of sense

They make it quite clear that they had no intention of honoring FOI requests, and believed, unreasonably, as it turns out, that their email communications were private. They've already acknowledged that the emails, docs and data are legit.

You'll also find, criminals don't act logically...it's what trips them up. Clearly evident in this case.

[DngrMse]

Perhaps it's time to dive under the hood, and take a peek at the duplicitious behavior not only of the 'scientists' involved in this scandal, but also some of the posters here on DA, (and some that posted on the late other-DA). You guys know who you are.

Back when Mann unveiled his regrettable "hockey stick", there were a number of people who raised some valid questions not only about his findings, but about his selection of data, and methodologies too. McKittrick, and McIntyre were, and are, the most well known, and for good reason, they deconstructed this "hockey stick", and called into question the behavior of the IPCC, it's review process, and the way in which the IPCC refused to reveal the identies of some of the reviewers, or their reviews, (in violation of their own policies).

For very good reason, it turns out. One such reviewer, The Hadley Center's John Mitchell had this to say about Mann's hockey stick:


b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no.

The rest of his write-up can be found here. (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/john-mitchells-review-comments/)

Science is supposed to be an open process....the alarmist camp has turned this idea on it's head. To those of you who frequently enjoyed some heavy namecalling, and ridicule at the expense of Steve McIntyre, and Ross McKittrick, what say you now? Is this how science, in your view, should be conducted? A lot of accusations were leveled unfairly at these two men over the past several years, while the behavior of the alarmists was praised, and said to be above reproach.

[Forthright]

http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20Global%20Warming%20Kool%20Aid%20(500).jpg

[boedicca]

Monckton's take on all this:



http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/


You scooped moi!

J'adore Lord Monckton. That coward Goru refused to debate him because he knows he will be totally annihilated.

[boedicca]

It occurs to one that ClimateGate is a perfect example as to why the Statist Lefties wish to micromanage all of our behavior. They themselves have no qualms about lying, stealing, destroying data, commiting fraud, etc. - that they must think that their lack of morals is the common condition for all of humanity.

[DngrMse]

It occurs to one that ClimateGate is a perfect example as to why the Statist Lefties wish to micromanage all of our behavior. They themselves have no qualms about lying, stealing, destroying data, commiting fraud, etc. - that they must think that their lack of morals is the common condition for all of humanity.

I wonder if now would be a good time to discuss the California state AG, and the amazingly coincidental disposal of ACORN docs from San Diego a couple of days before they were raided?

[boedicca]

I was just thinking about the same thing. Big Government has a great article on that topic today.

[CKIRK]

Perhaps it's time to dive under the hood, and take a peek at the duplicitious behavior not only of the 'scientists' involved in this scandal, but also some of the posters here on DA, (and some that posted on the late other-DA). You guys know who you are.

Back when Mann unveiled his regrettable "hockey stick", there were a number of people who raised some valid questions not only about his findings, but about his selection of data, and methodologies too. McKittrick, and McIntyre were, and are, the most well known, and for good reason, they deconstructed this "hockey stick", and called into question the behavior of the IPCC, it's review process, and the way in which the IPCC refused to reveal the identies of some of the reviewers, or their reviews, (in violation of their own policies).

For very good reason, it turns out. One such reviewer, The Hadley Center's John Mitchell had this to say about Mann's hockey stick:



The rest of his write-up can be found here. (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/john-mitchells-review-comments/)

Science is supposed to be an open process....the alarmist camp has turned this idea on it's head. To those of you who frequently enjoyed some heavy namecalling, and ridicule at the expense of Steve McIntyre, and Ross McKittrick, what say you now? Is this how science, in your view, should be conducted? A lot of accusations were leveled unfairly at these two men over the past several years, while the behavior of the alarmists was praised, and said to be above reproach.



Don't expect too much acknowledgement from the GW Hysterics. We know you're correct, they know it too but they will NEVER bring themselves to make such an admission. The hysterics were so certain of their position and they must be terribly broken right now. Remember, it was all settled, there is no debate. All I can do is laugh at them for being so gullable and acting like nobody had any right to question their belief. Isn't it funny how THEY were the ones saying everyone else was politicising science, when in fact it was them?
Leftists, "We told you so." Next time listen to us and don't fall into line like mindless sheep. Maybe next time, instead of attacking and screaming at those who question your beliefs, step back and ask questions too. Being sceptical is good, isn't it?
Nah, doubt it. We can't expect too much from these idiots.

Maybe leftists should just stick to what they're good at. Obsessing over, whining about, and smearing successful conservative women.

[Malcolm Wright]

I was not aware that the "best of human understanding" required falsifying data.


If all it took to invalidate an entire area of scientific inquiry was to prove that a few of those scientists fudged data... you might have a leg to stand on.

Notice that just because I could find HALF A DOZEN sites employing duplicity and pseudo-science to try to convince us the more co2 in the atmosphere is all good, or that human activity produces less co2 than volcanoes, I don't take that as proof that anthropogenic climate change is real. But I don't blame you for trying to milk this leaked email scandal for more milk than it has - that's what political hacks do. You are just being yourself.

I suppose we have very different standards of intellectual rigor.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Instead of belittling those who exercise a bit of caution, and refuse to spend their two dollars on a bottle of snake oil, you'd be better serving your faith by convincing people that yes, extraordinary proof, free from the taint that Mann, Briffa, Amman, and Jones have brought to the table, does in fact exist.

Bollocks. The only proof we have is the state of scientific understanding, and that will ALWAYS be the truth about every threat we face. And how do we proceed? We act based on our best understanding. Cautiously yes, but we act.

[86Dùde]

This shit is AWESOME!

[86Dùde]

I've had my head in the sand, actually fixing a truck the last few days so I missed this, but this is BIG. We're starting to peel away the layers and see the world for what it really is. The hackers responsible for this intrusion should have statues made in effigy.

[86Dùde]

Put down the partisan politics and see this shit for what is people, a scam. I know it sucks when everything you think you know ends up being bullshit but deal with it.

[DngrMse]

If all it took to invalidate an entire area of scientific inquiry was to prove that a few of those scientists fudged data... you might have a leg to stand on.

Notice that just because I could find HALF A DOZEN sites employing duplicity and pseudo-science to try to convince us the more co2 in the atmosphere is all good, or that human activity produces less co2 than volcanoes, I don't take that as proof that anthropogenic climate change is real. But I don't blame you for trying to milk this leaked email scandal for more milk than it has - that's what political hacks do. You are just being yourself.

I suppose we have very different standards of intellectual rigor.



Bollocks. The only proof we have is the state of scientific understanding, and that will ALWAYS be the truth about every threat we face. And how do we proceed? We act based on our best understanding. Cautiously yes, but we act.

I know this is difficult for you. Piltdown Man, and N waves did not go quietly into that good night either. I'll repeat myself, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and beyond that, all aspects of those claims, the evidence, the raw data, the methodologies must be available to all. Transparency is mandatory. There is only ONE reason to hide any of that, and you do realize this, even though you refuse to admit it. They, the men involved in this fraud, and you, demand that I simply accept without evidence the claims of AGW, and that I change my lifestyle. That's not a reasonable demand.

The biggest names in the alarmist camp...the ones responsible for the current hysteria surrounding AGW claims faked pretty much everything. From adjusting data to eliminate cooling trends, to colluding with unaffiliated scientific publications to prevent the publication of contrary views. This is science? This represents the state of scientific knowledge? Still, you, and others of the same mindset demand the rest of us change because of what these 'flawed' studies claim.

These men stopped being scientists, and started being politicians many years ago. I can't make you see that, nothing will make you see that. Pity you are the one who gave up the idea of scepticism. I'm willing to admit that even now, I could be entirely wrong about climate change. Can you?

[DngrMse]

I've had my head in the sand, actually fixing a truck the last few days so I missed this, but this is BIG. We're starting to peel away the layers and see the world for what it really is. The hackers responsible for this intrusion should have statues made in effigy.

The ethical violations alone will force one or more of these men into 'early retirement'. This is very big...but I want to remind everyone that these emails and documents are not revelations, they're affirmations. The "current state of scientific knowledge" about climate change, and it's causes has been smelling pretty bad for a long time now.

[boedicca]

Given that many of them were conducting this fraud with taxpayer funding and the impact this snake oil has already had on government regulations, they should face much more serious consequences than mere early retirement.

[86Dùde]

They should be executed, of course.

[boedicca]

The proper perspective:

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

[boedicca]

They should be executed, of course.


They should be airlifted to the Arctic circle with a boat. If it is indeed melting, as they claim, then they should be able to escape in their boat. If not, then they will freeze to death. Tis fittin.

[CKIRK]

I know this is difficult for you. Piltdown Man, and N waves did not go quietly into that good night either. I'll repeat myself, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and beyond that, all aspects of those claims, the evidence, the raw data, the methodologies must be available to all. Transparency is mandatory. There is only ONE reason to hide any of that, and you do realize this, even though you refuse to admit it. They, the men involved in this fraud, and you, demand that I simply accept without evidence the claims of AGW, and that I change my lifestyle. That's not a reasonable demand.

The biggest names in the alarmist camp...the ones responsible for the current hysteria surrounding AGW claims faked pretty much everything. From adjusting data to eliminate cooling trends, to colluding with unaffiliated scientific publications to prevent the publication of contrary views. This is science? This represents the state of scientific knowledge? Still, you, and others of the same mindset demand the rest of us change because of what these 'flawed' studies claim.

These men stopped being scientists, and started being politicians many years ago. I can't make you see that, nothing will make you see that. Pity you are the one who gave up the idea of scepticism. I'm willing to admit that even now, I could be entirely wrong about climate change. Can you?


Another great post.

To answer your bolded question: Doubtful. Very Doubtful. This is a religious issue to these idiots. Nothing will change them. Remember, according to them, it's all settled science.

[hadit]

Another great post.

To answer your bolded question: Doubtful. Very Doubtful. This is a religious issue to these idiots. Nothing will change them. Remember, according to them, it's all settled science.

And every time you point out where science had it completely wrong, they insist that science is never settled, but constantly changing. Of course, that simply makes this a political, not scientific, issue.

[boedicca]

Classic:

nEiLgbBGKVk

[Freedom&Liberty]

I liked the guitar playing cat.

Java! Get your thumb out of your mouth, you big baby.

[boedicca]

Is the blue guy TT or Opty?

[Freedom&Liberty]

I think TT, but I prefer to call him short bus.

[boedicca]

TT is such a short bus that he's actually a unicycle.

[boedicca]

Besides the obvious benefits of outing a fraud, another wonderful side effect of ClimateGate is the entertainment value.

From the internets beloved Iowahawk (one of the most amusing people evah):

Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

Narrator

Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature's most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world's most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.

French Horn Fanfare Theme

Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor's window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals

Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!

Narrator

This is the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, home of one of the largest nesting populations of climate scientists in Europe.

Gentle ant's-eye scene of idyllic campus lawn, strewn about with drunken mating undergraduates

Each year it attracts magnificent migratory flocks of graduate students, adjuncts and visiting faculty from across the northern hemisphere.

Shots of jumbo jets landing at Heathrow; herds of climate researchers busily milling at Duty Free shops, retrieving baggage, phoning for prearranged limo service

Within minutes of arriving on campus, the migratory researchers approach the entrance of the Climate Research Unit and perform the secret credential dance, fiercely displaying their prominent curriculum vitae. This signals to the security drone that they can be trusted with the sacred electronic lanyard badge that will grant them entrance to the hive's inner sanctum.

During the upcoming research season, this hive alone will produce over 6 million metric tons of grant-sustaining climate data guano, but until recently little was known about the elusive genus of homo scientifica living inside. Where do they come from? What strange force draws them here year after year? In order to unravel the mystery, Iowahawk Geographic documentary filmmaker David Burge undertook a painstaking one-week project to finally capture the climate researchers in their native habitat.

In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive's security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive's social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive's internal security tapes and email files. Success.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers

But there's a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive's Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher's instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University's Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

Like other species in the order homo scientifica, the climate researcher gathers and organizes data to lure grant money to the hive. In contrast to those other species, however, the climate researcher has evolved a set of complex violent behaviors to insure any data leaving the hive is perfectly adapted to nature's most lucrative and sweetest grants. It really is a marvel of natural selection, and explains why the climate researcher continues to thrive in any kind of weather condition.
Narrator

Many of those behaviors are on display in the security film, as we see a sexless group of drone graduate students processing a raw datum with saliva, sawdust and Fortran code. After each iteration the time series is presented to the Alpha Grantwriter to see if fits inside his graph. Several graduate drones die of exhaustion, but the data eventually fit the template.

Next the Alpha Grantwriter flies to an international climate research conference with the completed PowerPoint template, where he will share his guano with other Alpha Grantwriters over cocktails in the hotel lounge. This is a process metascientists refer to as "peer review."

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

Among climate researchers, peer review seems to serve three purposes. First, it rewards the hives that have the most successful data torturers. Second it singles out mutant hives for elimination. Third, it allows the Alpha Grantwriters to expense drinks.

Narrator

The Alpha Grantwriter in our hive has been very successful indeed. He has earned three publications, a keynote address, and attracts the attention of a suitor from the symbiotic grant-giving predator genus Lucra Ecologica Hysterica. The suitor's grant bags are bulging with carbon credits and tax revenues harvested using the hive's last graphs, and the pair once again engage in their annual cross-pollination ritual. They relax with a cigarette, and return to their respective hives: the Grantwriter with fresh money, the Grantgiver to Washington or Brussels with new carbon tax proposals. The circle of life is completed.

But life is not always so easy inside the hive of the climate researcher. Occasionally the sanctity of the hive is breached by a predator from the species Methodica Skeptica Scientifica, who threatens the hive with demands to see their raw data.

security film of ominous skeptic infiltrating the hive

In this rare footage, the invading skeptic is repelled by a swarm of drones before he can reach the entombed data. He makes another attempt, but the Alpha Grantwriter has called in reinforcements from the grantgiver hive and the New York Times.

Climate Researchers

Hissssss hisssssss hisssssssss

Narrator

The ear-piercing screech of the swarm warns the intruder that they will cut off his peer review unless he retreats. But the the hungry skeptic is not so easily dissuaded, and returns to the hive with a Freedom of Information Act form demanding a copy of the hive's raw data.

This sends the climate researcher drones into a wild frenzy as they scramble to find and conceal the scent of the preprocessed data. To bide time the Alpha Grantwriter offers the skeptic a copy of the hockey stick graph. The skeptic threatens a lawsuit with his stinger. Thinking quickly, the Alpha Grantwriter performs an elaborate dance, communicating that the original data has been eaten, possibly by graduate drone. He presents the skeptic with the dead bodies of 10 drones as a peace offering.

Finally stymied in his efforts to reach the data, the skeptic flies away. The hive lives on.

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

The climate researcher is in some sense a milestone in evolutionary biology. Ever since Darwin, we have understood that a particular species adapts to its environmental reality. Now for the first time, we are seeing evidence that environmental reality is adapting to a particular species. It's not really rocket science. Well okay, I suppose it's really not science at all.
Narrator

Join us next time on Iowahawk Geographic, when we go in search of the outer limits of the economic galaxy with "Stimulus-X: The Black Hole of the Beltway."

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html

[DngrMse]

Iowahawk is usually pretty timely. ;)

More on "hiding the decline", from comments in the code itself:


.......calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197


I've gone through the entire listing, and the docs I downloaded, and you know? It's funny...they do lots to eliminate, and hide the decline, but there's no mention of hiding any increases.

[boedicca]

More rational commentary:

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.

In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions....

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/

[DngrMse]

Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.


Some here will argue with that....they, and we, know who they are. Like the MWP, the fact that a warm earth is more conducive to life than a cooler earth is a very inconvenient truth that the alarmists would like to go away.

[boedicca]

It fits their world view: humans are not capable of surviving without Big Government.

:)

CBS' Declan McCullagh is doing an admirable job with his reporting (which should be appreciated by the computer tards):

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...


As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

[boedicca]

Another good read on those pesky computer codes and data sets:

So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of November 19 (see here, here, and here), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?

Here’s the short answer: it tells us that something went very wrong in the data management at the Climatic Research Unit.

We start with a file called “HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” This is a file containing notes of someone’s three-year effort to try to turn a pile of existing code and data into something useful. Who is Harry, you ask? Clearly, a skilled programmer with some expertise in data reduction, statistics, and climate science. Beyond that I won’t go. I’ve seen sites attributing this file to an identifiable person, but I don’t have any corroboration, and frankly the person who wrote these years of notes has suffered enough.

The story the file tells is of a programmer who started off with a collection of code and data — and the need to be able to replicate some results. The first entry:

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

/cru/dpe1a/f014

/cru/tyn1/f014

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted “read me” files addressing individual issues, the most useful being:

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)

Believe it or not, this tells us quite a bit. “Harry” is starting off with two large collections of data on a UNIX or UNIX-like system (forward slashes, the word “filesystem”) and only knows very generally what the data might be. He has copied it from where it was to a new location and started to work on it. Almost immediately, he notices a problem:

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison purposes that shouldn’t be a big problem … [edit] noo, that’s not gonna work either, it asks for a “template grim filepath,” no idea what it wants (as usual) and a serach for files with “grim” or “template” in them does not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

[jwreck]

*waves hand in front of face*[obi won voice]This is not the scandal you're looking for.[/obi won voice]

[TrailHiker]

Classic:

nEiLgbBGKVk

Funniest post of the year. Loved the crying bunnies

[86Dùde]

So if you folks believe this is all bullshit, then surely you'll agree that Copenhagen is a giant power grab built on false pretenses in order to establish and fund a defacto world government, Yes?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Of course. The UN is a piece of shit.

[DngrMse]

So if you folks believe this is all bullshit, then surely you'll agree that Copenhagen is a giant power grab built on false pretenses in order to establish and fund a defacto world government, Yes?

Power grab, you say? Actually, all this time, I thought it was for the children.

[Corporate Avenger]

Holy shit, I hope somebody is studying this shit..

[86Dùde]

Studying what shit?

[Malcolm Wright]

Pity you are the one who gave up the idea of scepticism.


Where did you get that from?
Just because the science indicates there is a high likelihood that our industries are adversely effecting climate, does not make me uncritical.

And like I said: a few dodgy scientists don't suddenly change that, despite the truck loads of wishful thinking I'm sure you can keep on bringing to this party.



I'm willing to admit that even now, I could be entirely wrong about climate change. Can you?

Of course I can.

[TrailHiker]

Where did you get that from?
Just because the science indicates there is a high likelihood that our industries are adversely effecting climate, does not make me uncritical.


High likelihood? Why to think it was less than a year ago that it was a "consensus" and anyone who argued otherwise was a "fool"

[boedicca]

It's quite clear that The Debate Was Never Over - it's just that the GW Promoters did everything they could to silence and undermine the skeptics - and cooked their computer models to the extent that they were such steaming piles of bogosity that they could not endure the light of scrutiny.

[DngrMse]

Where did you get that from?
Just because the science indicates there is a high likelihood that our industries are adversely effecting climate, does not make me uncritical.

And like I said: a few dodgy scientists don't suddenly change that, despite the truck loads of wishful thinking I'm sure you can keep on bringing to this party.



Of course I can.

A few. Dodgy. Scientists.

Shirley, you jest.

This is akin to J. Robert Openheimer, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feinman falsifying data together, then conspiring to hide it. Then preventing the publication of contrary studies. Then deleting evidence of their ethical lapses, while also agreeing in private that their lofty predictions are bunk.

[fat mike]

J. Robert Openheimer, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feinman (are)falsifying data together, then conspiring to hide it.

you cant prove it :mad:

[DngrMse]

Of course I can.

Sure you can.

Here's that decline, (it's in red), that the big four have been trying to hide.

Now, since your natural sceptical tendencies remain whole, explain to me why they needed to hide this decline, and why it does not set off alarm bells with you.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif

[fat mike]

einstein isnt even alive any more

[DngrMse]

einstein isnt even alive any more

Neither are the other two. Conspiracy? I dunno...I refuse to speculate.

[fat mike]

Neither are the other two. Conspiracy? I dunno...I refuse to speculate.

i believe in spirits-i thought you didnt..

[Malcolm Wright]

Sure you can.

Here's that decline, (it's in red), that the big four have been trying to hide.

Now, since your natural sceptical tendencies remain whole, explain to me why they needed to hide this decline, and why it does not set off alarm bells with you.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif

I'll be happy to comment once you provide me with a chart that:

a) is from an identifiable source
b) has its axes labeled so we can even tell what it is charting

I do NOT think this is too much to ask, and I DO think the fact you included this image as is speaks volumes about how unimportant rigorous science is to you.

[Malcolm Wright]

A few. Dodgy. Scientists.

Shirley, you jest.

This is akin to J. Robert Openheimer, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feinman falsifying data together, then conspiring to hide it. Then preventing the publication of contrary studies. Then deleting evidence of their ethical lapses, while also agreeing in private that their lofty predictions are bunk.

Its not akin to that at all.
And they never agreed their predictions were bunk - merely that they were presented with data that did not jive with their shorter term predictions. In the longer term (understand 'the future'), you and I would be fools to try to determine whether events will either confirm their overall predictions, or prove them bunk. Which one of us is being a fool in that very way?

You are.

You just said their predictions were bunk, without qualifying that statement. If I predict that standing under an unstable cliff is a dangerous thing to do and that you're probably going get hit by falling rocks if you insist on staying there, you'd be a fool to keep standing there, jubilant that you survived longer than the statistical projection I provided you with to try to estimate when you'd get clobbered.

Do you even understand this, or are you coming from a place of ignorance rather than intellectual dishonesty?

[Šñøü†ê®]

I hope they don't taser Algore...more than is necessary...

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/gorearrest_dees.jpg

[86Dùde]

Did ya hear how he was chased away at that book signing in Colorado? Good Stuff..

[TrailHiker]

I'll be happy to comment once you provide me with a chart that:

a) is from an identifiable source It took me 5 seconds :http://www.climateaudit.org


b) has its axes labeled so we can even tell what it is charting If you are that ignorant then labeling the graph wouldn't matter


I do NOT think this is too much to ask, and I DO think the fact you included this image as is speaks volumes about how unimportant rigorous science is to you.Your two lame excuses for not responding to the chart represent the "voluminous" speaking

BTW....who are you to talk about "rigorous science" when you are defending scientists that have selected data that only fits the conclusions they wish to verify. That's a scientific felony

[boedicca]

Mr. Boe sent me a YT of Conspirator Zero for the AGW:

8DEoOdcYKbc


(And, wtf were the producers of this show thinking?)

[TrailHiker]

Mr. Boe sent me a YT of Conspirator Zero for the AGW:

8DEoOdcYKbc


(And, wtf were the producers of this show thinking?)

Eat shit Snouter! There's your proof that Cowpunk really WAS a star!

[boedicca]

ROFLMAO!!! ^^^

[flaming_liberal]

Why is everything given the suffix "gate" these days? Whatever happened to it just being reserved for Tricky Dicky?
I suspect, considering the political inclination of the most frequent abusers, it has more to do with downplaying that whole mess.

[boedicca]

The suffix "Gate" is shorthand for a scandal and cover up. It's actually a pretty handy four letter word.

[flaming_liberal]

Really? I had no idea. Not like that's what my grievance is or anything.

Also, a suffix can't be a word. We call those things compound words, which are different.
French fries are Belgium, too.

[boedicca]

Gate is both a word and a suffix.

:)

[Rapier]

Gatemonger.

[flaming_liberal]

Gate is both a word and a suffix.

:)

Yes, because an opening permitting passage through an enclosure makes total sense in context.

Now here's my point. If the most basic of context clues escapes your thought process, how can you honestly trust any of your more complex thoughts? They build, you know.

It's only shame on you if you do it twice. Try to be a little bit inventive with your retort.

[boedicca]

It's a word. In the Dictionary.

:)

Try again.

[flaming_liberal]

It's a word. In the Dictionary.

:)

Try again.

Yes, it is a word as well as a suffix. We're not discussing the uses of it as a noun. We're discussing the uses of it as a suffix. Two different definitions. The suffix and the noun have different uses and definitions. The fact that it is a word is relevant only so far as the word, when used as a suffix, means something quite different from the word being used.
But your obvious lack of comprehension of this point further reinforces the argument that you are incapable of carrying out complex thought processes with any sort of expectation of accuracy or continuity. You simply lack the capacity to make a reasoned conclusion based on the simple fact that you lack the capacity to grasp context.

We've established you need to start thinking. I'm here to help you learn how to think. This will be a scary path for you, I'm sure. I'm here to help.

Try harder with your response, although I laud your attempt at maintaining civility.

P.S. The more you keep being obtuse, the more my point simply becomes reinforced. It would be better in the long run to simply accept that you didn't get my original point. You made a mistake. Be a big girl and admit it. It's much easier than making me feel like I'm beating up a retard.

[boedicca]

Sorry, bub.

Arguing about the use of the term "gate" is not going to change the reality: AGW has been outed as a massive Fraud, Hoax, Scam, Con, Swindle, Chicanery, Racket...a shakedown which by any other name would still Stink To High Heaven.

It's a wonderful ThingGate.

[fat mike]

pendejogate

[Freedom&Liberty]

flaming_assholegate

[flaming_liberal]

Sorry, bub.

Arguing about the use of the term "gate" is not going to change the reality: AGW has been outed as a massive Fraud, Hoax, Scam, Con, Swindle, Chicanery, Racket...a shakedown which by any other name would still Stink To High Heaven.

It's a wonderful ThingGate.

My point is that you are incapable of grasping context, which is critical to grasping complex concepts. As your posts evince, you lack said capacity. I'm not arguing the merits of global warming. I'm arguing that your arguments should be considered tantamount to a thousand monkeys with typewriters producing the great works of Shakespeare. As such, anything and everything you post must be considered suspect.
Or you could get off your high horse and admit I'm right and you're wrong about a trivial little matter. I know you lack such grace, but now would be the time to shock me.

[Freedom&Liberty]

The fact that it is a word is relevant only so far as the word, when used as a suffix, means something quite different from the word being used.It's a suffix coined by journalists that represents a scandal. I'm sure you've seen it used many times before. It applies in this instance as well. Now STFU and find another thread to troll.

[fat mike]

My point is that you are incapable of grasping context, which is critical to grasping complex concepts. As your posts evince, you lack said capacity. I'm not arguing the merits of global warming. I'm arguing that your arguments should be considered tantamount to a thousand monkeys with typewriters producing the great works of Shakespeare. As such, anything and everything you post must be considered suspect.
Or you could get off your high horse and admit I'm right and you're wrong about a trivial little matter. I know you lack such grace, but now would be the time to shock me.

shakespeare stole from seneca and the romans-and i know youve heard of francis bacon gate..

[Corporate Avenger]

Sorry, bub.

Arguing about the use of the term "gate" is not going to change the reality: AGW has been outed as a massive Fraud, Hoax, Scam, Con, Swindle, Chicanery, Racket...a shakedown which by any other name would still Stink To High Heaven.

It's a wonderful ThingGate.


Wrong, the mammoth WMD fiasco which is still killing people everyday was a fraud, hoax, scam, con, swindle, chicanery, and a racket, and idiots like you fell for it.

Global warming is backed up by irrefutable evidence, but because it goes against your insane, fascist, ego-centric belief system you deny the facts since you're a raving fanatical extremist. That's the truth of the matter.

It's odd how people like you who are always dead wrong about everything, think you know everything...:nonono:

[Rapier]

Wrong, the mammoth WMD fiasco which is still killing people everyday was a fraud, hoax, scam, con, swindle, chicanery, and a racket, and idiots like you fell for it.

Global warming is backed up by irrefutable evidence, but because it goes against your insane, fascist, ego-centric belief system you deny the facts since you're a raving fanatical extremist. That's the truth of the matter.

It's odd how people like you who are always dead wrong about everything, think you know everything...:nonono:


What's really odd, funny odd, is that the media has convinced people that there are two points of view on pollution.

[Corporate Avenger]

What's really odd, funny odd, is that the media has convinced people that there are two points of view on pollution.


And that it doesn't get hot as fluck when I roll up my windows on a hot summer say in my car.

They've convinced people that harmful substances don't exist.

[Rapier]

And that it doesn't get hot as fluck when I roll up my windows on a hot summer say in my car.

They've convinced people that harmful substances don't exist.

What's the point of debating Global Warming when its cause is pollution? There is none. Both sides are being manipulated to what end?


Which side benefits from Global Warming controversy?

Big business. It's a smokescreen that lessens the money business is required to dedicat to fight pollution.

[DngrMse]

I'll be happy to comment once you provide me with a chart that:

a) is from an identifiable source
b) has its axes labeled so we can even tell what it is charting

I do NOT think this is too much to ask, and I DO think the fact you included this image as is speaks volumes about how unimportant rigorous science is to you.

Yeah, those axes are pretty damned hard to figure out. Took me hours and hours to puzzle out that the horizontal axis is in "years". I had to look "years" up too! And the vertical axis...omg. I'm pretty sure that refers to quatloos. I could be wrong though. So I can see why/how you'd be mystified by it. I'm also pretty sure you can't right click the image, nor select "properties" from the resultant drop down menu, to divine where this mysterious image came from.

[DngrMse]

Its not akin to that at all.

These four men are together responsible for official global temperature reconstructions. Reconstructions which are then cited in other studies, and papers. Reconstructions that the UN's IPCC, and other world governments use to set policy. Yes, Shirley, it's a big deal. A very. Big. Deal.

I can't, however, help but notice you've not had much to say on any of this though. The fraud, the lies, the conspiracy. Nothing at all. Secret science....are you for all that, or not?



And they never agreed their predictions were bunk - merely that they were presented with data that did not jive with their shorter term predictions.

There were two instances, actually. You could try reading through the documents, and emails.



In the longer term (understand 'the future'), you and I would be fools to try to determine whether events will either confirm their overall predictions, or prove them bunk. Which one of us is being a fool in that very way?


And which of their many models have accurately predicted this 14 year cooling period? Which have accurately predicted quieting hurricane seasons? Which accurately predict El Nino, and La Nina cycles?

Their track record so far...coupled with the damning evidence in the hacked documents, and further charges of scientific misconduct among other like minded researchers leads me to believe that they're likely to see any of their predictions come true...well, not without more of that data manipulation they, and you, seem so damned fond of.






Do you even understand this, or are you coming from a place of ignorance rather than intellectual dishonesty?

I'm not actually the one who's been manipulating data, subverting the scientific process, colluding to prevent the publication of contrary views, etc, etc. Nor am I the one who believes this is no big deal...and who can't utter even the most mild of criticisms against those that did.

[flaming_liberal]

shakespeare stole from seneca and the romans-and i know youve heard of francis bacon gate..


Shake-a-spear's famed for his words, not his plots.
Think Tarantino.

[flaming_liberal]

It's a suffix coined by journalists that represents a scandal. I'm sure you've seen it used many times before. It applies in this instance as well. Now STFU and find another thread to troll.


flaming_assholegate

And I'm the one trolling?

So since you guys all seem to have lost any sense of humor (as indicative by the responses to my original post), and since you guys really do believe that anybody could not know what that suffix means, I guess I'll spell it out for you. You guys still didn't get my original point. Why? You didn't read the entire post. It had a point. It was a somewhat humorous point. But due to the fact that you guys seem to have the capacity to read only half of whatever's ever written, I really shouldn't be surprised. So instead of rushing to feed another idiot who would rather starve than learn how to fish, pick up a rod and reel. Start casting. The secret to catching a fish is to wait until you've got the thing, not just a piece of it.

[boedicca]

Don't blame F&L for not having a sense of humor when the problem is you are just Not That Amusing.

Back to the topic.

It's very amusing to watch the AGW moonbats try to spread the meme that we should believe Jones, Mann & Co.'s version because they appeared in Peer Reviewed Journals.

Ed Begley in particular has developed a for of Peer Review Tourettes.

[fat mike]

Shake-a-spear's famed for his words, not his plots.
Think Tarantino.

good point

[CKIRK]

High likelihood? Why to think it was less than a year ago that it was a "consensus" and anyone who argued otherwise was a "fool"

You're right. I just got through reading some threads from the past couple years here. Malcolm and the other lefty stooges are hiliarous. What a bunch of ass-clowns!
Apparently a "consensus" is proof.

[DngrMse]

Penn State has opened an investigation on Mann. Hmmm. I would have guessed Jones would have been the first under the microscope.

[DngrMse]

What do you know...there's more. East Anglia, (CRU), has decided to release all their figures. I do hope this means they will be releasing, (making public), all raw data, all the code that modifies that data, the justifications for modifying that data, and whether those modifications were done independently of other research groups.

The last, I think is important, because Michael Mann, famous for his disgraced hockey stick graph, features prominently in email discussions with the CRU cabal on how to modify data, how to hide those modifications from the public, and how to prevent contrary views from ever seeing the light of day. In light of that, Jones' statements:
"Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results."
...are laughable. Of course their findings dove-tail that of Hansen, and Mann...It's that way by design. Even so, this is a step in the right direction.

This does feel like a delaying tactic to me though, as they qualify that broad statement about releasing figures with "first negotiating the rights to release the data". I suspect we won't see anything until after Copenhagen, or until it's too late to provide analysis prior to Copenhagen. Anyone taking bets?

Jones further stated that the release of the hacked documents was:
"a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks".

Well, Mr. Jones...very likely it was. And had you and your ilk not spent so much time politicizing your 'science', and had you instead adhered to the modern notions of the scientific method, all your work, everything you've done, would have been subject to public scrutiny years ago. There would be nothing left to discuss at this time.

There's only one reason Jones, Mann, or anyone else has to hide their research, and that's because it can't, on it's own, survive the peer review process Jones et al sought to undermine. I know Jones, Briffa, Mann, and many others are gritting their teeth right now...this will not be comfortable for them. The only ray of sunshine in their forthcoming days is going to be the unwavering support of other 'true believers', those that will never admit they've done anything wrong. Those that believe the issue this research raises is greater than the need for any transparency, and honesty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

[boedicca]

As H.L. Mencken noted: The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

And one will add, the urge to save(rule) humanity often involves an "ends justify the means" mentality, ergo Jones, Mann & Co.

[boedicca]

128 Years of Doom and Gloom from the New York Times:

(what a hoot!)

• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/

[86Dùde]

7 days.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Let's not forget these gems -


In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1. So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002. Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/24/climate_of_fear/

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. —Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. —Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. —Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. —Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

[optimus]

Did any of the right wing tools notify the melting glaciers of this conspiracy?

[Truth Teller]

I have spoken to a respected scientist with no poilitcal/social agenda who says that the planet is warming,and also to a conservative who hates Al Gore as much as you rigthies here do ,but has the intellectual honesty to concede that warming is going on.

What is causing the warming is very,very much open to debate ,but the warming itself isn't open to debate ,it is a fact.

[86Dùde]

7 days.

[optimus]

Hilarious thread. You righties are something else...

What the scientists were actually talking about in the emails (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)


More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/)) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.


The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
More Here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Do yourselves a favor and READ.

[86Dùde]

7 days.

[Rapier]

7 days.

Since you missed your period?

[Rapier]

7 days.

Till your period?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Hilarious thread. You righties are something else...

What the scientists were actually talking about in the emails (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)


More Here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Do yourselves a favor and READ.Michael Mann is one of the main contributors to realclimate.org. I can only assume that you would trust Nixon if he wrote that Watergate was bullshit.

[fat mike]

water gate
WAS bs

[86Dùde]

7 Days.

[Java_man]

I see the GREAT GIGANTIC HUMONGOUS CONSPIRACY HOAX STORY OF THE CENTURY has already fizzled out like a week old soda sitting in the sun

No one cares outside of the usual deniers and a few noisy whinger enablers .. not surprising that a handful of cherry-picked out-of-context emails would not overturn 30+ years of science

*yawn*

[fat mike]

7 days what??

[Freedom&Liberty]

Look everyone, Java took his thumb out of his mouth long enough to fling some poo.

The lack of real science behind Global Warming will be it's undoing. The cat is out of the bag.

[Freedom&Liberty]

7 days what??Until Copenhagen.

[Rapier]

Well off? Sounds like the people with gated residences. When it's really big business.


Time Magazine
* The 50 Best Inventions of 2009 >
* The Best Inventions




The Personal Carbon Footprint

Negotiations over carbon emissions resemble the end of a Quentin Tarantino film, when everyone has a gun pointed at everyone else and no one can make a move. Rich nations (like the U.S.) need to make the first cuts, but they won't until developing nations (like China) do — and vice versa. Researchers from Princeton University suggest working on the individual level instead. It's the well-off people of the world — in Indiana or India — who are responsible for most carbon emissions. A strategy focused on rich individuals instead of rich countries might just get us out of this.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1934027,00.html

[DngrMse]

Hilarious thread. You righties are something else...

What the scientists were actually talking about in the emails (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)


More Here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Do yourselves a favor and READ.

So...when Jones wrote to other "inner circle" researchers, and told them to delete emails concerning AR4....that's not what he meant?

You are seriously flucking stupid if you believe that....and even stupider if you expect others to believe it.

[boedicca]

I have spoken to a respected scientist with no poilitcal/social agenda who says that the planet is warming,and also to a conservative who hates Al Gore as much as you rigthies here do ,but has the intellectual honesty to concede that warming is going on.

What is causing the warming is very,very much open to debate ,but the warming itself isn't open to debate ,it is a fact.



The last mini ice age ended in 1850. Of course the earth is warming - that's what happens after an ice age ends. The earth gets warmer - it's natural, and generally associated with improved living conditions. Why you lefties wish to see us return to ice age conditions is very suspicious.

[boedicca]

Look everyone, Java took his thumb out of his mouth long enough to fling some poo.

The lack of real science behind Global Warming will be it's undoing. The cat is out of the bag.


Java is living proof that his parents had anal sex.

Just sayin'.

[hadit]

I have spoken to a respected scientist with no poilitcal/social agenda who says that the planet is warming,and also to a conservative who hates Al Gore as much as you rigthies here do ,but has the intellectual honesty to concede that warming is going on.

What is causing the warming is very,very much open to debate ,but the warming itself isn't open to debate ,it is a fact.

And that's the problem. The true believers have bought the idea that man is causing ALL of the heating, and if Americans would just ride bicycles instead of driving cars, all the cute polar bears will have ice to ride around on. Based on that idea, world leaders (aka massive power grabbers) are even now working on ideas that would drastically increase governments' power, lower the Western world's standard of living, and do nothing to slow down China and India's rising contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, thus doing absolutely NOTHING to stop or even slow the warming (which apparently has decided to take a break, even though man caused CO2 emissions have continued to increase).

[hadit]

What's the correct temperature for the globe?

[Rapier]

Until Copenhagen.

And all this time I didn't think he was up to snuff.

[Rapier]

What's the correct temperature for the globe?

Room temperature as opposed to gloom temperature.

[boedicca]

During major ice ages, the CO2 levels were far higher than they are now.

[Rapier]

And that's the problem. The true believers have bought the idea that man is causing ALL of the heating, and if Americans would just ride bicycles instead of driving cars, all the cute polar bears will have ice to ride around on. Based on that idea, world leaders (aka massive power grabbers) are even now working on ideas that would drastically increase governments' power, lower the Western world's standard of living, and do nothing to slow down China and India's rising contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, thus doing absolutely NOTHING to stop or even slow the warming (which apparently has decided to take a break, even though man caused CO2 emissions have continued to increase).

Yup. Look it up.