The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

this is a mind bogglingly stupid generalization. ever been to LA or Tokyo? smog is caused by PPM (part per MILLION) emissions caused by humans. you then try to make a case that our contribution to emissions in the range of THOUSANDS of PPM cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever. talk about shortsighted. humans can have a VERY strong influence on the environment. while i agree that our CO2 emissions aren't likely to be a driving cause of climate change, to say that there is no effect is ludicrous. we've successfully poisoned habitats around the globe and caused the extinction of literally hundreds of thousands of species through our actions. to assume no harm and say "lalala it doesn't matter" is the position of recklessness.

No one could argue that humans do not produce local effects. Global climate change is orders of magnitude larger than that though.

 

[bueno]

Is the Earth warming due to human consumption, manipulation? Yes and No.

Do humans have an impact on the Earth and its resources? Yes.

If the Earth is cooling on a global scale naturally, why are certain things in the environment happening?

If the Earth is warming on a global scale naturally, why are certain things in the environment happening?

For those that are saying the Earth is cooling in the last decade or how many ever years, why are ice caps melting and not growing back to their previous state? Why are glaciers disappearing at an exponential rate? Why are parts of the ocean warmer than years previous?

These are all separate issues within the global warming/climate change aspect. There is a 100% certainty that humans have an impact on all of these. What degree do humans have an impact on all of these is the question. Taking small bits of information and concluding that those could happen on a large scale versus "the Earth goes up an down naturally" are two completely different arguments. Yes, the Earth has natural trends. Yes, humans can speed up some of these trends by what we do.

Take a small sample, test it within different environments and if those tests show similar results, voila, those may then happen on a larger scale. To simply dismiss these types of things is not a good thing to do yet many are doing it. Sure, this science facility messed up with its data and whatever else, however, that in no way concludes that everything else within global warming/climate change should be dismissed or even negated.

The problem is you can't do this. You cannot take a small part of an open system like the planet and test just that. Just normal variance in the data makes it impossible, but the fact that every part of the earth is in communication with every other part makes any experimentation on a scale other than global useless.

 

[bueno]

Says the guy who posts "incotrovertible facts" here and lambasts anyone who doesn't immediately agree with their validity, despite his senseless resistance to produce a source for said facts. You'd change more minds if you changed your attitude, that's all I'm saying. And my mind didn't even need changing, just confirmation.

Okay, I provided green house gas components and the amount man has contributed - which no one has refuted. These numbers are consistent withy many other sources.

I didn't realize that if we didn't take the time to look into what you were posting and specifically refuted it, it was accepted and inconvertible fact. I'll remember that the next time you let one of my postings slip unanswered.But since this is apparently the standard, I looked into your 3% number. It's apparently consistent with "many other sources" which all came from the same source. But I guess an echo proves that the original statement is true, huh.

In any case, this is some of what I've found.

Article 1:

While some estimate that the human share of atmospheric carbon dioxide is as small as 3 percent—according to David J. C. MacKay, professor of natural philosophy in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, the burning of fossil fuels sends seven gigatons (3.27 percent) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, while the biosphere and oceans account for 440 (55.28 percent) and 330 (41.46 percent) gigatons, respectively[131]—total human emissions have jumped sharply since the Industrial Revolution; and it is this added atmospheric carbon that worries many. MacKay writes that, yes, carbon is emitted naturally into the atmosphere but that the atmosphere also sends carbon back to the land and oceans and that these carbon flows have canceled each other out for millennia. “Burning fossil fuels, in contrast,” writes MacKay, “creates a new flow of carbon that, though small, is not cancelled.”

Though the amount of additional carbon from human activities is dwarfed by natural carbon levels, might the added carbon increase from humans be enough to alter climate dynamics? Are humans to blame for global warming? If so, what portion of the warming do we cause? Advancing the climate ddepends on a clear understanding of emissions’ impacts.

This throws an entirely different light on the 3% number. Here's another take on the same idea.

Dr Michael Buchwitz from the Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP) at the University of Bremen in Germany and his colleagues detected the relatively weak atmospheric CO2 signal arising from regional ‘anthropogenic’, or manmade, CO2 emissions over Europe by processing and analysing SCIAMACHY data from 2003 to 2005.

"The natural CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface are typically much larger than the CO2 fluxes arising from manmade CO2 emissions, making the detection of regional anthropogenic CO2 emission signals quite difficult," Buchwitz explained.

"This does not mean, however, that the anthropogenic fluxes are of minor importance. In fact, the opposite is true because the manmade fluxes are only going in one direction whereas the natural fluxes operate in both directions, taking up atmospheric CO2 when plants grow, but releasing most or all of it again later when the plants decay. This results in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the first half of a year followed by lower CO2 during the second half of a year with a minimum around August.

"That we are able to detect regionally elevated CO2 over Europe shows the high quality of the SCIAMACHY CO2 measurements."

Buchwitz says further analysis is required in order to draw quantitative conclusions in terms of CO2 emissions. "We verified that the CO2 spatial pattern that we measure correlates well with current CO2 emission databases and population density but more studies are needed before definitive quantitative conclusions concerning CO2 emissions can be drawn."

The jury still seems to be out as to how big of an effect this is going to have. But to just trivialize it as, "Well, it's only a small amount of the naturally occurring" seems to represent a methodological and conceptual error.

The bolded parts of what you cite tend to ignore the fact that the earth has natural buffer systems in place. More CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, provides more energy for plant life, so one possible buffer is an increase in plant growth. I don't know whether that happened or not, I'm just trying to point out that what Buchwitz said ignores potential responses to changes in atmospheric chemistry. The earth is not static.

 

[bueno]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

Do you have any idea on what peer review actually means?Generally speaking, not all of what you do is made available to made all of your peers. You see, this is the problem of being judged and condemned by Random Internet Guy on a fantasy football board. He has zero idea of what he's thinking about but is 100% certain that he is correct. And this is why I'm letting my opinion on global warming go with the common wisdom of the scientific community.

Actually, that is the point of publishing data.....

 

[tommyboy]

makes you wonder if they even teach the scientific method anymore?

for Bonzai and others:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/.../AppendixE.html

 

[jon_mx]

Do you have any idea on what peer review actually means?

Generally speaking, not all of what you do is made available to made all of your peers. You see, this is the problem of being judged and condemned by Random Internet Guy on a fantasy football board. He has zero idea of what he's thinking about but is 100% certain that he is correct. And this is why I'm letting my opinion on global warming go with the common wisdom of the scientific community.

Random Internet Guy on a fantasy football board: 1Common wisdom of the scientific community: 0

 

[Phase of the Game]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

 

[Bonzai]

I make lots of legitimate points and post lots of legitimate sources. You ignore me because you can't refute the facts. Global Warming is an embarrassment to science. Even pro-global warming scientists are beginning to be ashamed of the 'science'.

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: November 27, 2009

The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.

I'm fine with heads rolling over the stolen emails. These folks make scientists look bad. It still doesn't invalidate the years of research in climate that backs up concerns about our environment.

This guy has an interesting take: link

As I mentioned here, Jones had it coming. Still, his stepping down is a drop in the bucket as far as the actual research goes. Sorry jon_mx, I'm still not buying that Jones is the ringleader of the inner circle of twelve leading a liberal conspiracy to bring down the world. I hope you understand. What's unfortunate is how this will play politically. It's obviously a major political win for anti-climate change crowd.

Here is the article if you don't feel like clicking the link:

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.

Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.

In this case you could argue that technically he has done nothing wrong. But a fat lot of good that will do. Think of the MPs' expenses scandal: complaints about stolen data, denials and huffy responses achieved nothing at all. Most of the MPs could demonstrate that technically they were innocent: their expenses had been approved by the Commons office. It didn't change public perceptions one jot. The only responses that have helped to restore public trust in Parliament are humility, openness and promises of reform.

When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an honourable exit. Otherwise, like the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, he will linger on until his remaining credibility vanishes, inflicting continuing damage to climate science.

Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that "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." In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.

When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as charged". When I got hold of him on Saturday, his answer was to send me a pdf called "WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999". Had I a couple of hours to spare I might have been able to work out what the heck this had to do with the current crisis, but he offered no explanation.

By then he should have been touring the TV studios for the past 36 hours, confronting his critics, making his case and apologising for his mistakes. Instead, he had disappeared off the face of the Earth. Now, far too late, he has given an interview to the Press Association, which has done nothing to change the story.

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

 

[jon_mx]

As I mentioned here, Jones had it coming. Still, his stepping down is a drop in the bucket as far as the actual research goes. Sorry jon_mx, I'm still not buying that Jones is the ringleader of the inner circle of twelve leading a liberal conspiracy to bring down the world. I hope you understand.

What's unfortunate is how this will play politically. It's obviously a major political win for anti-climate change crowd.

Here is the article if you don't feel like clicking the link:

Not a very balanced article. Calling skeptics liars, deniers, scumbags.... innuendos that they are corrupt by fossil fuel industry. There are a lot of legitimate points made by skeptics that are simply ignored by belittling them with this type of rhetoric. The scientific journals, IPCC reports, the media have all corrupted the science by not allowing any dissent. I am sure there are many examples where skeptics have been incorrect, but that does not justify the stink that surrounds the so-called science of global warming peer review process. Here is an article written by John Daly just before he passed away. He wasn't a scumbag, liar, or funded by the fossil fuel industry. This article documents his experience with the peer-review system of the global warmers. Wander around his website, Still Waiting for Greenhouse. The site is not kept up very well by his daughter, but he did a lot of good work and was way ahead of his time in pointing out serious problems with the numbers behind global warming.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So you would rather put your faith in groups that destroy and tamper with data, won't release raw data, etc.?

Like this stuff?

 

[jon_mx]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

 

[Bonzai]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

It's sad, but views like this are only going to get strengthened by this whole debacle. There is so much craziness in this post it's impossible to untangle it. I know I've probably come off as a knee jerk climate change supporter in this thread, but the article I posted really has the community up in arms. I think this might be the most important bit from it:

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

Science nerds just aren't equipped to handle the spotlight that comes with the climate change debate. If they just plug along and do the science like any other nerd, they leave themselves open to countless attacks by folks with an endless money supply. If they try to speak out against these attacks, they'll be labeled as "activists". If they try to defend themselves from these attacks in more quiet ways, they look suspicious and aren't being open. It seems that Jones got caught up trying to play this game and got burned.

 

[jonessed]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

It's sad, but views like this are only going to get strengthened by this whole debacle. There is so much craziness in this post it's impossible to untangle it. I know I've probably come off as a knee jerk climate change supporter in this thread, but the article I posted really has the community up in arms. I think this might be the most important bit from it:

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

Science nerds just aren't equipped to handle the spotlight that comes with the climate change debate. If they just plug along and do the science like any other nerd, they leave themselves open to countless attacks by folks with an endless money supply. If they try to speak out against these attacks, they'll be labeled as "activists". If they try to defend themselves from these attacks in more quiet ways, they look suspicious and aren't being open. It seems that Jones got caught up trying to play this game and got burned.

Hanging yourself up as a martyr and calling people that disagree scumbags isn't going to help either. Perhaps this guy should take some of his own advice.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.

You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

Your conclusions are not supported by what you and others have posted in this thread. You have not even demonstrated that anything from this one institute should be discounted, though it does raise eye brows. You have specifically offered little to no evidence that

Anyone used tricks on data to hide trends
there should have been an expectation that the source data be retained
Any attempts to sabotage the peer review process
Any inappropriate data manipulation
Any made up data
Any relevant programming issuesYou have demonstrated that individuals scientists have "disdain for ...[certain types of] dissent". Shocker!

Now all of the above could very well be true. In fact some are likely. But what you offered is not proof of any issues at this one institute, yet alone a grand conspiracy among dozens, hundreds of institutions and thousand, millions of scientist. You keep making up good sounding rules like "without the source you can review the results and methodology of a programmer" which is really nonsense. I can review Dodds' weekly FBG projections just fine and I don't know his methodology or his tools. You correctly claim that when someone makes a claim the burden is on them to back that claim up, yet somehow in this case the burden is not on the AGW crowd to demonstrate actual wrong doing but the scientists to constantly respond to every silly claim they want to make otherwise they must be guilty. Again your conclusion for these claims might all turn out to be true and this represents a turning point in the debate, but the evidence produced so far doesn't yet condemn anyone, yet alone the entire science community.

 

[jonessed]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.

You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

Your conclusions are not supported by what you and others have posted in this thread. You have not even demonstrated that anything from this one institute should be discounted, though it does raise eye brows. You have specifically offered little to know evidence that

Anyone used tricks on data to hide trends
there should have been an expectation that the source data be retained
Any attempts to sabotage the peer review process
Any inappropriate data manipulation
Any made up data
Any relevant programming issuesYou have demonstrated that individuals scientists have "disdain for ...[certain types of] dissent". Shocker!

Now all of the above could very well be true. In fact some are likely. But what you offered is not proof of any issues at this one institute, yet alone a grand conspiracy among dozens, hundreds of institutions and thousand, millions of scientist. You keep making up good sounding rules like "without the source you can review the results and methodology of a programmer" which is really nonsense. I can review Dodds' weekly FBG projections just fine and I don't know his methodology or his tools. You correctly claim that when someone makes a claim the burden is on them to back that claim up, yet somehow in this case the burden is not on the AGW crowd to demonstrate actual wrong doing but the scientists to constantly respond to every silly claim they want to make otherwise they must be guilty. Again your conclusion for these claims might all turn out to be true and this represents a turning point in the debate, but the evidence produced so far doesn't yet condemn anyone, yet alone the entire science community.

Just take the time to read some of the emails. Even the scientists on the GW side say they are very damning (there is a reason Jones stepped down). Jones and Mann openly discuss sabotaging the peer review process, manipulating the data, adding in fudge factos to cover up cooling trends, actively trying to circumvent FOI requests by deleting communications. Noone can help you if you refuse to help yourself. The evidence comes from the horse's mouth. Just take the time to read some of the emails. There is no need to take snippets. You can follow entire discussions. They aren't shy about what they are doing.These are the two most influential people on the subject of GW and in charge of the data and models that flows to the IPCC. The idea that they are somehow just a couple of cogs in the grand wheel is absurd and disingenuous.

 

[Bonzai]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.

You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

Your conclusions are not supported by what you and others have posted in this thread. You have not even demonstrated that anything from this one institute should be discounted, though it does raise eye brows. You have specifically offered little to know evidence that

Anyone used tricks on data to hide trends
there should have been an expectation that the source data be retained
Any attempts to sabotage the peer review process
Any inappropriate data manipulation
Any made up data
Any relevant programming issuesYou have demonstrated that individuals scientists have "disdain for ...[certain types of] dissent". Shocker!

Now all of the above could very well be true. In fact some are likely. But what you offered is not proof of any issues at this one institute, yet alone a grand conspiracy among dozens, hundreds of institutions and thousand, millions of scientist. You keep making up good sounding rules like "without the source you can review the results and methodology of a programmer" which is really nonsense. I can review Dodds' weekly FBG projections just fine and I don't know his methodology or his tools. You correctly claim that when someone makes a claim the burden is on them to back that claim up, yet somehow in this case the burden is not on the AGW crowd to demonstrate actual wrong doing but the scientists to constantly respond to every silly claim they want to make otherwise they must be guilty. Again your conclusion for these claims might all turn out to be true and this represents a turning point in the debate, but the evidence produced so far doesn't yet condemn anyone, yet alone the entire science community.

Just take the time to read some of the emails. Even the scientists on the GW side say they are very damning (there is a reason Jones stepped down). Jones and Mann openly discuss sabotaging the peer review process, manipulating the data, adding in fudge factos to cover up cooling trends, actively trying to circumvent FOI requests by deleting communications. Noone can help you if you refuse to help yourself. The evidence comes from the horse's mouth. Just take the time to read some of the emails. There is no need to take snippets. You can follow entire discussions. They aren't shy about what they are doing.

Ugh. Yes, I don't think the emails should be swept aside, but you've greatly exaggerated the extent of their damage here. The only thing that's really concerning to me is the alleged circumvention of the FOI requests. There is no proof any emails were deleted, though. I've already addressed the "sabotaging" of the peer review process, and it looks like you've flat out made up the rest.

 

[Bonzai]

Arguing on the internet makes me tired. You guys are relentless, I don't see how you do it.

 

[jonessed]

Ugh. Yes, I don't think the emails should be swept aside, but you've greatly exaggerated the extent of their damage here. The only thing that's really concerning to me is the alleged circumvention of the FOI requests. There is no proof any emails were deleted, though. I've already addressed the "sabotaging" of the peer review process, and it looks like you've flat out made up the rest.

Not swept aside, just downplayed . It doesn't really matter. The Europeans are calling for heads so the damage is clearly there. Cap and trade died in Australia and it's now dead in the US. If you want to chalk it up to an over-reaction on the destruction of scientific data and mis-interpretation of obfuscating emails then that's your prerogative. I haven't made anything up. I don't have to. The evidence is coming straight from their own conversations. The tough thing about having egoes that big is that they tend not to mince words about their transgressions.

 

[tommyboy]

Still laughing at the GW supporters getting

If you say so.Honestly, I don't see any GW supporters in the thread. I see people who are on the side on science and people who are on the side of conspiracy theories. The people on the side of science are trying to have a conversation; the people on the side of the tinfoil hats are trying to "pwn" and score Internet Points. I guess from your posting that you think they're doing just that.

You guys should all go out and get a malted milk or something to celebrate.

I think you need to re-read the thread. I missed the so-called conversation the GW supporters were trying to have. Most came in with personal attacks, attacks on FoxNews (I am not sure why, they are not even a primary source for this story), lame rationalizations for why using tricks on data to hide trends are good and why losing the source data is not big deal. If that is being on the side of 'science', science is in a sad state. No real conspiracy theories here except what is clearly laid out in the emails. Attempts to sabotage the peer review process, data manipulation, disdain for any dissent, loss data, made up data, programming nightmares. The so-called conspiracy theory has a more solid foundation in truth than the theory of global warming.

Your conclusions are not supported by what you and others have posted in this thread. You have not even demonstrated that anything from this one institute should be discounted, though it does raise eye brows. You have specifically offered little to no evidence that

Anyone used tricks on data to hide trends
there should have been an expectation that the source data be retained
Any attempts to sabotage the peer review process
Any inappropriate data manipulation
Any made up data
Any relevant programming issuesYou have demonstrated that individuals scientists have "disdain for ...[certain types of] dissent". Shocker!

Now all of the above could very well be true. In fact some are likely. But what you offered is not proof of any issues at this one institute, yet alone a grand conspiracy among dozens, hundreds of institutions and thousand, millions of scientist. You keep making up good sounding rules like "without the source you can review the results and methodology of a programmer" which is really nonsense. I can review Dodds' weekly FBG projections just fine and I don't know his methodology or his tools. You correctly claim that when someone makes a claim the burden is on them to back that claim up, yet somehow in this case the burden is not on the AGW crowd to demonstrate actual wrong doing but the scientists to constantly respond to every silly claim they want to make otherwise they must be guilty. Again your conclusion for these claims might all turn out to be true and this represents a turning point in the debate, but the evidence produced so far doesn't yet condemn anyone, yet alone the entire science community.

take your time, there's lots to readhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

take your time, there's lots to read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I'm done with this site. I understand why they believe scientists are in a grand conspiracy as it is quite clear that they believe science is about supporting conclusions. That is all read on that site. I don't think I read one credible piece. Nothing! And they certainly have a whole lot of room whining about "science" being disrespectful. Again, my position isn't that they are ultimately wrong on global warming, but that they fail to make their case in any manner other than slander and cherry picked attacks against cherry picked data. They are as bad, maybe worst than a Idiotic Design site.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/

I haven't had time to look here yet.

 

[jonessed]

take your time, there's lots to read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I'm done with this site. I understand why they believe scientists are in a grand conspiracy as it is quite clear that they believe science is about supporting conclusions. That is all read on that site. I don't think I read one credible piece. Nothing! And they certainly have a whole lot of room whining about "science" being disrespectful. Again, my position isn't that they are ultimately wrong on global warming, but that they fail to make their case in any manner other than slander and cherry picked attacks against cherry picked data. They are as bad, maybe worst than a Idiotic Design site.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/

I haven't had time to look here yet.

Cherry-picked data? How about removing 20 years of your data, taking a seperate study, canibalizing part of its data, and splicing it into your now missing timeline in order to get the curve you want. Now that is cherry-picking data

 

[Jobber]

So now Comedy Central is a more reliable news source that the major networks:

Jon Stewart on the Fraud

 

[Bonzai]

So now Comedy Central is a more reliable news source that the major networks:

Jon Stewart on the Fraud

While the emails that he chose to highlight have been appropriately dismantled in my liberally brainwashed mind, there is enough there for my general sentiment to be the same as the one he presents here.

 

[jon_mx]

take your time, there's lots to read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I'm done with this site. I understand why they believe scientists are in a grand conspiracy as it is quite clear that they believe science is about supporting conclusions. That is all read on that site. I don't think I read one credible piece. Nothing! And they certainly have a whole lot of room whining about "science" being disrespectful. Again, my position isn't that they are ultimately wrong on global warming, but that they fail to make their case in any manner other than slander and cherry picked attacks against cherry picked data. They are as bad, maybe worst than a Idiotic Design site.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/

I haven't had time to look here yet.

You would have to be pretty biased in your views to find nothing. Granted, they discredit themselves a bit with over the top rhetoric and a some questionable arguments, but there is still a lot of legitimate points especially if you wander through Harry Read Me' file. I find there are equally a number of very poorly supported conclusion on the side of the 'settled science'. It is pretty disturbing how much garbage and missing information is in their data base and how screwed up their programming is. If the 'Idiotic Designers' arguements are better than these, I think I need to look into them more because maybe they have better case than I gave them credit.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

You would have to be pretty biased in your views to find nothing.

What an ironic comment.

 

[jon_mx]

You would have to be pretty biased in your views to find nothing.

What an ironic comment.

Not really. I am far more versed in the pro-global warming side and open to their arguments than vice versa. It should be an embarrassment to any honest and legitimate scientist with how global warmers treat opposing arguments. The global warming debate really opened up my eyes to how corrupt science can become. Of course having the UN as the arbitrator of truth of this science, it is kind of expected. The UN can't do anything without corrupting it and the IPCC is about as corrupt as you get.

 

[ichris]

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud

This scandal is young, new details come out every day.

 

[Bonzai]

Stewart's take is similar to George Monbiot's that I posted earlier, although Monbiot is more tuned in to which emails are really the most damaging.

His most recent article is even better.:

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

 

[pantagrapher]

From Nature:

Climatologists under pressure

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

link

 

[jon_mx]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

 

[pantagrapher]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

ABCMSNBC

CBS

Exposed, indeed.

 

[jon_mx]

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud

This scandal is young, new details come out every day.

Nothing to see here....Climate gate is just limited to 4 or 5 people.....

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

By Stephen Dinan

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud

By: BILL MYERS

Examiner Staff Writer

December 2, 2009

Former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl, of Silver Spring, pleaded guilty to contract fraud Tuesday. (Courtesy photo)

A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world's most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth's atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife's company.

In addition to a year's probation, former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, was also fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service. He admitted in the late summer that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by Schoeberl's wife, Barbara. Prosecutors alleged that Schoeberl tried to help his wife's firm for years. When his colleagues balked at giving no-bid contracts to his wife's firm, Schoeberl pressured them to steer money to his wife through indirect means.

or maybe 6 or 7 people.....or maybe a few more, the day is still young....

 

[jon_mx]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

ABCMSNBC

CBS

Exposed, indeed.

First one is from ABC Australia, the second is a story form the Washington Post linked to, and the third is an AP story. What kind of mention on the nightly news? I can't see how they can miss it since Copenhagen is right around the corner and it is all the buzz. It is a start, but it is sad it took over a week and Congressional hearings on the subject before they even acknowledged its existence. Now let's see them lead their nightly broadcast with the controversy. It is a week overdue.

 

[Bonzai]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

ABCMSNBC

CBS

Exposed, indeed.

First one is from ABC Australia, the second is a story form the Washington Post linked to, and the third is an AP story. What kind of mention on the nightly news? I can't see how they can miss it since Copenhagen is right around the corner and it is all the buzz. It is a start, but it is sad it took over a week and Congressional hearings on the subject before they even acknowledged its existence. Now let's see them lead their nightly broadcast with the controversy. It is a week overdue.

Thank god for Tiger Woods.

 

[jamny]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

ABCMSNBC

CBS

Exposed, indeed.

You can't honestly believe this shows that the MSM is covering this properly. This is completely being ignored in hopes that it goes away. Which it won't. If people think these scientists aren't ready for the media spotlight, just wait until they're called to testify.

 

[katarr]

You know it is serious when NPR produces a fairly balanced article on this. I really don't know how ABC, NBC, and CBS can continue to ignore this story. They are exposing themselves.

ABCMSNBC

CBS

Exposed, indeed.

First one is from ABC Australia, the second is a story form the Washington Post linked to, and the third is an AP story. What kind of mention on the nightly news? I can't see how they can miss it since Copenhagen is right around the corner and it is all the buzz. It is a start, but it is sad it took over a week and Congressional hearings on the subject before they even acknowledged its existence. Now let's see them lead their nightly broadcast with the controversy. It is a week overdue.

They are gonna have to deal with it no matter how much they want to ignore it. This is a global issue, being reported globally. It would be a mistake for the President to not acknowledge this when he goes to Copenhagen.

 

[tommyboy]

i would be more sympathetic to the GW crowd if they would stop referring to skeptics as "denialists". This isn't a religion, its science.

my position is the earth is in flux, as it always has been, and the climate will heat and cool within long term global tolerances. I don't think what we've experienced in my lifetime since 1967 is either outside of the long term global tolerances or undoubtedly anthropogenic (man made). We stopped having a science discussion on this about the same time Al Gore got the world scared with his movie full of demonstrably misleading claims. Then it became a war of propoganda. That doesn't mean we should rape the earth, we shouldn't. We shouldn't not because of the fear of climate change, because it is folly to think man can control the worlds climate in any significant way, we shouldn't because its the responsible thing to do for everyone on the planet.

What would be nice is if we could stop with the hysterical claims from both sides. I think reasonable folks would agree that as long as we keep adding people to the planet that resources will tend to scarcity and we should reasonably expect adverse conditions to result from overpopulation and depletion of resources. I think reasonable people agree the climate is changing. Hasn't it always changed? That is not new. "Climate Change" is a slogan, climate change has always occured.

Get the science out of poitics and the politics out of science. It is unreasonable to make predictions like the IPCC did in 2007 that said due to global warming all of the glaciers in the himalayas would melt in 25 years. This is fear mongering 101, due these idiots at the IPCC even realize how thick glaciers are and how many glaciers there are in the himalayas? This isn't science, its science fiction. We don't need the IPCC, they are worthless. We do need unbiased, open and testable science. We don't need to wait for it however to continue to reduce our consumption of natural resources, to strive to pollute less, to act responsibly towards nature.

 

[pantagrapher]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

 

[katarr]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

 

[pantagrapher]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than 30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated.

Signed.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

Kind of like how any global weather change is now proof that AGW is in fact, a fact. Warmer weather...sign of AGW. Unusually cold year? Must be AGW. Global Warming has been presented over the last 10 years to be a scientific certainty on par with gravity and evolution. Skeptics of AGW have been compared to those who believe the world is just 6,000 years old and ridiculed for their skepticism. And now, when there are a few holes in the AGW bubble, you expect the skeptics to not rub it in a bit. That's like expecting the fat nerd from high school to not mention his chet-like fortunes at the 20 year reunion.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

Kind of like how any global weather change is now proof that AGW is in fact, a fact. Warmer weather...sign of AGW. Unusually cold year? Must be AGW. Global Warming has been presented over the last 10 years to be a scientific certainty on par with gravity and evolution. Skeptics of AGW have been compared to those who believe the world is just 6,000 years old and ridiculed for their skepticism.

And now, when there are a few holes in the AGW bubble, you expect the skeptics to not rub it in a bit. That's like expecting the fat nerd from high school to not mention his chet-like fortunes at the 20 year reunion.

Yeah, like the FACT that the world HAS NOT warmed in at least 10 years, and the "scientists" don't know why.

 

[pantagrapher]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

Kind of like how any global weather change is now proof that AGW is in fact, a fact. Warmer weather...sign of AGW. Unusually cold year? Must be AGW. Global Warming has been presented over the last 10 years to be a scientific certainty on par with gravity and evolution. Skeptics of AGW have been compared to those who believe the world is just 6,000 years old and ridiculed for their skepticism.

And now, when there are a few holes in the AGW bubble, you expect the skeptics to not rub it in a bit. That's like expecting the fat nerd from high school to not mention his chet-like fortunes at the 20 year reunion.

Yeah, like the FACT that the world HAS NOT warmed in at least 10 years, and the "scientists" don't know why.

What we need some kind of worldwide climate science conspiracy to suppress information like this.

 

[katarr]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than 30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated.

Signed.

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

 

[Bonzai]

i would be more sympathetic to the GW crowd if they would stop referring to skeptics as "denialists". This isn't a religion, its science.my position is the earth is in flux, as it always has been, and the climate will heat and cool within long term global tolerances. I don't think what we've experienced in my lifetime since 1967 is either outside of the long term global tolerances or undoubtedly anthropogenic (man made). We stopped having a science discussion on this about the same time Al Gore got the world scared with his movie full of demonstrably misleading claims. Then it became a war of propoganda. That doesn't mean we should rape the earth, we shouldn't. We shouldn't not because of the fear of climate change, because it is folly to think man can control the worlds climate in any significant way, we shouldn't because its the responsible thing to do for everyone on the planet. What would be nice is if we could stop with the hysterical claims from both sides. I think reasonable folks would agree that as long as we keep adding people to the planet that resources will tend to scarcity and we should reasonably expect adverse conditions to result from overpopulation and depletion of resources. I think reasonable people agree the climate is changing. Hasn't it always changed? That is not new. "Climate Change" is a slogan, climate change has always occured. Get the science out of poitics and the politics out of science. It is unreasonable to make predictions like the IPCC did in 2007 that said due to global warming all of the glaciers in the himalayas would melt in 25 years. This is fear mongering 101, due these idiots at the IPCC even realize how thick glaciers are and how many glaciers there are in the himalayas? This isn't science, its science fiction. We don't need the IPCC, they are worthless. We do need unbiased, open and testable science. We don't need to wait for it however to continue to reduce our consumption of natural resources, to strive to pollute less, to act responsibly towards nature.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

 

[pantagrapher]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than 30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated.

Signed.

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

I didn't forge my signature.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

 

[katarr]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

Kind of like how any global weather change is now proof that AGW is in fact, a fact. Warmer weather...sign of AGW. Unusually cold year? Must be AGW. Global Warming has been presented over the last 10 years to be a scientific certainty on par with gravity and evolution. Skeptics of AGW have been compared to those who believe the world is just 6,000 years old and ridiculed for their skepticism.

And now, when there are a few holes in the AGW bubble, you expect the skeptics to not rub it in a bit. That's like expecting the fat nerd from high school to not mention his chet-like fortunes at the 20 year reunion.

Yeah, like the FACT that the world HAS NOT warmed in at least 10 years, and the "scientists" don't know why.

What we need some kind of worldwide climate science conspiracy to suppress information like this.

I think all the skeptics are looking for is some kind of acknowledgment that the science isn't as settled as it has been presented to us in the past.No one is foolhardy enough to believe that humans have zero impact on the global environment...but the question of how much, to what end and what are the appropriate measures are still very much the subject of conjecture and debate. That debate has been squashed in the past by those AGWists who marched on with their dogma and talking points. Setting economic policy based upon unsettled science is not a good path to go down. The fact that we've made it THIS far down this path and the fact that now, it appears that some of the data was manipulated and/or withheld, DOES leave one to wonder why. It is a natural progression.