Climategate Lies

[purpleoscar]

That's a non-answer.

I suspect that you would continue with coal plants as long as they generate cheaper electricity.

No it's not. If the budget doesn't allow for something bankruptcy is not an option. I have no problem with coal if it's cheaper and gradually including nuclear (some plants exist already) and pursuing clean coal as well. There are also large amounts of natural gas in the U.S. that can be tapped. We can do what we can where it's feasible but I wouldn't pursue nuclear 100% and ignore fossil fuels. Nuclear is still not cheap enough to go it alone. If we gradually increase nuclear power plants in the next 30 years hopefully nuclear fusion will be good enough to move beyond prototype stage so it can develop more energy than fission. Of course if octane can be created in large quantities from CO2 per Craig Venter then that would be another option. Though that is a big if at this stage.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think the topic of this thread which investigated "climategate" and showed it to be a beat-up makes peer review even more important these days. The media (particularly the Murdoch press) ran with a story of partial leaks that obscured the reality and the truth only came out after a proper investigation.

You do not think like a scientist ought to. You are unable to change your mind on the important issues and take claims which support your political position as automatically true. You only pick out scientists who support your position but don't acknowledge the interlocking of other forms of evidence (for instance the divergence of tree rings over the last few decades is a worrying anomaly precisely because they fit other proxies so well before that - it's not a cause for celebration that climate change is somehow discredited).

I don't know if catastrophic climate change is imminent (I suspect regular resource depletion and environmental degradation will do more damage over the next few decades) but I think there are enough warning signs that need to be acknowledged (temperature trends, changing breeding seasons, changing animal body sizes, diseases like malaria spreading into new areas). There are enough serious unknowns (such as permafrost and methane clathrates) which should make sensible people more cautious.

You just repost hackwork from sites created by the oil industry and interviews from contrarian scientists. You don't care that knowledge claims should be scrutinised by experts during peer review (the fact they are in competition keeps them more honest, not less).

You wave your animosity towards the scientific method in very populist terms and continue to muddy the waters throwing out a million new graphs and critiques which you expect others to waste their time rebutting.

 

[BVS]

Excellent post

 

[purpleoscar]

I think the topic of this thread which investigated "climategate" and showed it to be a beat-up makes peer review even more important these days. The media (particularly the Murdoch press) ran with a story of partial leaks that obscured the reality and the truth only came out after a proper investigation.

People aren't stupid They can read those emails and understand bullying since it's in most office environments already. A whitewash internal investigation can't hide what is in plain day. Computer experts have already looked at the computer models and can see manipulation of the data to create alarmist results. You don't like Exxon giving money to scientists but it's okay to have biased investigations and manipulated data to achieve your political ends. It's also par for the course to you that government funding is always neutral.

At least some people are actually trying to improve their understanding of CO2.

Max Planck Society - Press Release

Climate researchers must now examine how the new findings affect the predictions for the carbon dioxide balance and climate change. "It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature," says Markus Reichstein. "The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global biogeochemichal cycles and their importance for long-term developments."

You do not think like a scientist ought to. You are unable to change your mind on the important issues and take claims which support your political position as automatically true. You only pick out scientists who support your position but don't acknowledge the interlocking of other forms of evidence (for instance the divergence of tree rings over the last few decades is a worrying anomaly precisely because they fit other proxies so well before that - it's not a cause for celebration that climate change is somehow discredited).

I'm not the one making claims about CO2. You are. CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver. This is why most scientists are moving on and trying to improve their understanding of the natural environment so they can make better understanding of what is man made and what is natural.

Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon' - Telegraph

However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were "uncertainties" in his work.

"I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,"

I wish Mann was LOUDER when the hockey stick graph was pushed in my anthropology class as a smoking gun evidence and then a cap and trade video presented afterwards. My teacher was a fucking PhD and she did this. Yet she also admitted she liked Karl Marx so there you go.

I don't know if catastrophic climate change is imminent (I suspect regular resource depletion and environmental degradation will do more damage over the next few decades) but I think there are enough warning signs that need to be acknowledged (temperature trends, changing breeding seasons, changing animal body sizes, diseases like malaria spreading into new areas). There are enough serious unknowns (such as permafrost and methane clathrates) which should make sensible people more cautious.

Oh here's another fall back position, biodiversity. Observing animal changes (as if it didn't happen in the past) and blaming CO2 from warming gets nipped in the bud when CO2 can't be shown as the main climate driver. You guys keep moving and moving and pushing end of the world dates back you remind me of radical Christians moving forward dates of when Jesus Christ will return. Why make predictions (as if you know) and then make more of them when they turn false. Your own video admits you don't know but just are "concerned". How much of temperature changes = man made? You don't know. Since animals always change when climate changes how would it make sense to blow trillions on something that might be a natural problem? We already have natural earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos. Where are we going to get the money to pay for "I'm concerned scenarios" when people want health-care, education, defense, disaster relief, international aid?

You just repost hackwork from sites created by the oil industry and interviews from contrarian scientists. You don't care that knowledge claims should be scrutinised by experts during peer review (the fact they are in competition keeps them more honest, not less).

It means that the science skeptics produce do not get peer-reviewed by the AGW proponents so we have a dualistic result that doesn't convince people. You unfortunately have to prove to the naysayers that you're right (since you're making the claims) but you don't have the evidence because real world results don't confirm the studies. You also need to peer-review skeptic studies so the skeptics can in turn see if the review was fair. This would create a real debate instead of a stand off. Right now it's a battle of appeal to authority. Since the public has to make descisions about their money (because it's a democracy) your buddies will have to get much more strong evidence before your favorite special interest group gets the money. I actually don't see the "competition". That's like saying a trade barrier is economic competition.

You wave your animosity towards the scientific method in very populist terms and continue to muddy the waters throwing out a million new graphs and critiques which you expect others to waste their time rebutting.

I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions. And if you don't agree with the alarmists you should be stopping them from taking your favorite studies and distorting them as Michael Mann pretends to do now. Instead you go hand in hand with them and when they change their target (ocean acidification, biodiversity) you move onto the next catastrophic scenario. The problem with using the same playbook is that skepticism will increase not decrease.

What people want from science is not "I'm concerned". What they want is "this will happen and the effects are happening as predicted." Until you have that certainty people aren't going to radically impoverish themselves on "I'm concerned".

 

[BVS]

I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions.

This sadly sums up your fingers in your ears approach to this whole issue, and why it's pointless to argue with you. You don't understand the scientific approach, you cling to the editorials(of both sides). Is the "science" you present using the scientific method?

I'm curious. Do you even believe in science? Is the scientific method only used when it renders the results you like? Or are you just throwing this junk out there just to take up our time?

Honestly, I don't think you even believe the science you post here.

 

[purpleoscar]

This sadly sums up your fingers in your ears approach to this whole issue, and why it's pointless to argue with you. You don't understand the scientific approach, you cling to the editorials(of both sides). Is the "science" you present using the scientific method?

I'm curious. Do you even believe in science? Is the scientific method only used when it renders the results you like? Or are you just throwing this junk out there just to take up our time?

Honestly, I don't think you even believe the science you post here.

Yeah the skeptics don't practice science.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/lord-russell-of-holyrood/

We are not amused.

 

[Bluer White]

More politics and science intertwined:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

FOXNews.com - NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World

 

[BVS]

What else is he suppose to do in an interview with Al Jazeera?

 

[A_Wanderer]

People aren't stupid They can read those emails and understand bullying since it's in most office environments already. A whitewash internal investigation can't hide what is in plain day. Computer experts have already looked at the computer models and can see manipulation of the data to create alarmist results. You don't like Exxon giving money to scientists but it's okay to have biased investigations and manipulated data to achieve your political ends. It's also par for the course to you that government funding is always neutral.

You're making a pretty big accusation against those universities (that they are engaged in a whitewash) and then backup your claims with an appeal to "computer experts". That isn't a strong argument especially given the triumphalist noise that the right produced over the e-mails in the first place without realising they were being played like a fiddle by other parties (or perhaps you enjoy being manipulated when it's for more corporate interests). There is no evidence that the data has been manipulated to create a climate scare and it's dishonest of you to continue to parrot that line given the results of these investigations.

At least some people are actually trying to improve their understanding of CO2.

Max Planck Society - Press Release

How very condescending of you: what exactly do you think other climatologists have been doing with their time?

I'm not the one making claims about CO2. You are.

You're claiming that CO2 either doesn't effect the climate, is not the main driving force for climate (probably true but that doesn't mean it's insignificant), was greater in the past ergo it's fine in the future, helps trees grow better and will be good for the environment, doesn't have any impact on ocean acidity etc.

I'm claiming that the Greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact which is open to revision on the basis of new evidence. That human emissions have an impact on global climate, and we ought to take a precautionary approach rather than aim to use every last bit of hydrocarbon in the earths crust.

I think I'm being more reasonable.

CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver.

In the sense that getting energy from the sun is more important than CO2 to the climate? The rise in CO2 tracks with climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years in ways that Milankovich cycles and solar activity cannot account for by themselves.

This is why most scientists are moving on and trying to improve their understanding of the natural environment so they can make better understanding of what is man made and what is natural.

This doesn't follow from your last point. If CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver (and proof is a very conditional statement in science) that doesn't mean that CO2 is not the main climate driver. Science is all about understanding the natural world and the process of investigation which you describe is exactly what scientists have been doing and it's exactly what's pointing towards climate change. But you consistently ignore any evidence that goes against the right-wing narrative you embrace.

Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon' - Telegraph

Given the campaign by the denialist movement that Mann has had to defend himself against for years maybe it's reasonable to wish his graph wasn't used. But not all of climate science rests on Mann's hockey stick graph. How would his presentation of data discredit other data sets and all the other papers written on climate change?

I wish Mann was LOUDER when the hockey stick graph was pushed in my anthropology class as a smoking gun evidence and then a cap and trade video presented afterwards. My teacher was a fucking PhD and she did this. Yet she also admitted she liked Karl Marx so there you go.

You're so open minded. You've been complaining that you had a Marxist lecturer or tutor for the last four years without giving any substantive criticism of their teaching. It highlights your attitude towards opinions that you disagree with - complain that there's a conspiracy against your views and ignore their statements.

Oh here's another fall back position, biodiversity. Observing animal changes (as if it didn't happen in the past) and blaming CO2 from warming gets nipped in the bud when CO2 can't be shown as the main climate driver.

Extinction is always going on but the rate of extinction changes over time. Sometimes the rate is so high that a large proportion of species go extinct quite rapidly (thousands to a few million years) and this is called a mass extinction. This isn't too hard to grasp but you seem to think the presence of background extinction is the same as extinction happening at an accelerated rate. You have no idea how science works if you think the greenhouse effect is fraudulent and the evidence against it is being suppressed; or you are being willfully dishonest by conflating uncertainty in science (which is ever presence by the very nature of scientific inquiry) with complete ignorance.

You guys keep moving and moving and pushing end of the world dates back you remind me of radical Christians moving forward dates of when Jesus Christ will return. Why make predictions (as if you know) and then make more of them when they turn false. Your own video admits you don't know but just are "concerned". How much of temperature changes = man made? You don't know.

It seems to me that economics is more like a religion than climate science; you take a faith based position that the market solves all and follow from there. I started with your position but when I did relevant courses at a university level that involved looking at data sets and land use change it swayed me. I can honestly say that when I thought climate change was a hoax I was seeing the world through a right wing lens and I didn't think
about the issue objectively. Even though I'm not completely objective now (who can ever be?) I feel I'm being more open minded by being open to evidence.

The video of pentagon officials planning for realistic scenarios and having contingent plans for worst case scenarios shows how much of an alternative reality you are living in. There were climate sceptic generals who changed their mind when tasked with investigating the evidence in an honest way. When you "investigate" it's a case of starting with the conclusion (climate change is a marxist hoax to steal money from the first world) and shaping the evidence to satisfy it.

Since animals always change when climate changes how would it make sense to blow trillions on something that might be a natural problem? We already have natural earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos. Where are we going to get the money to pay for "I'm concerned scenarios" when people want health-care, education, defense, disaster relief, international aid?

Because some of the animals it effects are humans and it costs us money in the future to deal with the consequences.

During your stellar education did you learn about the precautionary principle and weighing costs of action versus inaction?

It means that the science skeptics produce do not get peer-reviewed by the AGW proponents so we have a dualistic result that doesn't convince people.

Could it be that they just aren't doing the original research in the first place and the entire point of the media campaign by the denialist machine is to keep people unconvinced? You posted an article about citations which says nothing about credible scientists being blocked from publication.

You unfortunately have to prove to the naysayers that you're right (since you're making the claims) but you don't have the evidence because real world results don't confirm the studies.

Obviously not the world you live in, but for the rest of us there are neat resources like Climate Change: Evidence which demonstrate the impact on the natural world.

You also need to peer-review skeptic studies so the skeptics can in turn see if the review was fair.

Why should this privilege only extend to climate change? Can't we have evolution sceptics judge the fairness of biology articles, stork theory advocates judge human reproduction, or homeopaths judge medical journals?

The extraordinary claim is that climate sceptics are a beleaguered minority who are protecting the truth from a nefarious cult of globalists led by Al Gore who control all the other scientists by abusing peer-review systems and that real sceptics need special privileges to get their ideas out there.

This would create a real debate instead of a stand off. Right now it's a battle of appeal to authority. Since the public has to make descisions about their money (because it's a democracy) your buddies will have to get much more strong evidence before your favorite special interest group gets the money. I actually don't see the "competition". That's like saying a trade barrier is economic competition.

A free-market solution to the marketplace of ideas. People should just buy what they like and let the market decide the truth. If people don't want climate change then we can vote and decide that it's not real simple as that.

I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions. And if you don't agree with the alarmists you should be stopping them from taking your favorite studies and distorting them as Michael Mann pretends to do now. Instead you go hand in hand with them and when they change their target (ocean acidification, biodiversity) you move onto the next catastrophic scenario. The problem with using the same playbook is that skepticism will increase not decrease.

What people want from science is not "I'm concerned". What they want is "this will happen and the effects are happening as predicted." Until you have that certainty people aren't going to radically impoverish themselves on "I'm concerned".

What people want from science? I think this sums up your attitude that science should be about telling people what they want to hear

 

[Bluer White]

That human emissions have an impact on global climate, and we ought to take a precautionary approach rather than aim to use every last bit of hydrocarbon in the earths crust.

It's reasonable that human emissions have an impact on the global climate. What are your policy proposals to address this?

What is the world investment, in billions or trillions denominated in USD?

How many degrees Fahrenheit should we expect to manipulate in 100 years time?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't know.

 

[purpleoscar]

I don't know.

I was going to rebut all that CRAP but I think this is more economical.

 

[Bluer White]

I was going to rebut all that CRAP but I think this is more economical.

It's not crap at all. But it's all theoretical.

Most of us aren't scientists. I'd like to see it in dollars and degrees, or something close.

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not crap at all. But it's all theoretical.

Most of us aren't scientists. I'd like to see it in dollars and degrees, or something close.

You can't have it both ways. When alarmists make false predictions, ostracize dissent and want to spend trillions people have a right to be mad as hell. Tribalism isn't peer review. After the way skeptics are treated I don't shed a tear for Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

 

[BVS]

You can't have it both ways.

Yet, this is exactly how you approach the subject.

You reject the science that changes your status quo.

And then you gather up any opposing science, even if it contradicts each other, throw against a wall and see if any of it sticks.

Then when you can't argue science you attack all scientists that have results that support climate change and call them socialist and say they are all in cahoots with some world wide conspiracy theory.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I was going to rebut all that CRAP but I think this is more economical.

I think my willingness to admit that I don't know anything about economics shows intellectual honesty. That you take it as a sign of weakness or stupidity shows something else entirely.

 

[purpleoscar]

You're making a pretty big accusation against those universities (that they are engaged in a whitewash) and then backup your claims with an appeal to "computer experts". That isn't a strong argument especially given the triumphalist noise that the right produced over the e-mails in the first place without realising they were being played like a fiddle by other parties (or perhaps you enjoy being manipulated when it's for more corporate interests). There is no evidence that the data has been manipulated to create a climate scare and it's dishonest of you to continue to parrot that line given the results of these investigations.How very condescending of you: what exactly do you think other climatologists have been doing with their time?You're claiming that CO2 either doesn't effect the climate, is not the main driving force for climate (probably true but that doesn't mean it's insignificant), was greater in the past ergo it's fine in the future, helps trees grow better and will be good for the environment, doesn't have any impact on ocean acidity etc.

Computer experts could readily see that their measurements didn't match reality and when they said we were warming during the last decade that was wrong. It's a whitewash and calling me condescending after all those failed predictions and polar bear propaganda is rich from you.

BTW the study I posted says it has an ocean affect within natural variation. The IPCC studies treated it as if we had enough fossil fuels to perpetually add CO2 when we don't and so they put some exagerrated prediction that will be proven false. Everything has an effect but is it catastrophic?

I'm claiming that the Greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact which is open to revision on the basis of new evidence. That human emissions have an impact on global climate, and we ought to take a precautionary approach rather than aim to use every last bit of hydrocarbon in the earths crust.

We don't know if it's positive or negative feedback and in that link I posted it shows they have a lot more work to do. I didn't say that human emissions don't have an impact (I'm sure our farts have some impact) I said the impact is not as catastrophic as predicted by the warmists. Obviously it's not! How many years of predictions failing do we have to go through before we understand that? The disgusting propaganda we've been subjected to and the arrogant attitude of so called scientists towards skeptical scientists rings alarm bells in peoples minds.

BTW the aim isn't to use everything out of the earths crust. We use it because it's cheaper and has fought poverty better than any other fuel and without it your sorry ass wouldn't be on this computer because it wouldn't have been invented without it. The problem is that the green technologies are so costly and produce so little energy that to starve the population is immoral and so unrealistic. I just watched a news report on how Canada needs to upgrade their electrical grid and it will cost so many billions that they say we need to invest over decades to upgrade it. This is not even counting cap and trade. It makes me wonder whether you actually care about people or you look at them as evil polluting units that need to be starved.

I think I'm being more reasonable.In the sense that getting energy from the sun is more important than CO2 to the climate? The rise in CO2 tracks with climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years in ways that Milankovich cycles and solar activity cannot account for by themselves.

Okay so do more work instead of assuming it's man, unless you can create temperature projections that show you know what you're talking about.

This doesn't follow from your last point. If CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver (and proof is a very conditional statement in science) that doesn't mean that CO2 is not the main climate driver. Science is all about understanding the natural world and the process of investigation which you describe is exactly what scientists have been doing and it's exactly what's pointing towards climate change. But you consistently ignore any evidence that goes against the right-wing narrative you embrace.Given the campaign by the denialist movement that Mann has had to defend himself against for years maybe it's reasonable to wish his graph wasn't used. But not all of climate science rests on Mann's hockey stick graph. How would his presentation of data discredit other data sets and all the other papers written on climate change?You're so open minded. You've been complaining that you had a Marxist lecturer or tutor for the last four years without giving any substantive criticism of their teaching. It highlights your attitude towards opinions that you disagree with - complain that there's a conspiracy against your views and ignore their statements.Extinction is always going on but the rate of extinction changes over time. Sometimes the rate is so high that a large proportion of species go extinct quite rapidly (thousands to a few million years) and this is called a mass extinction. This isn't too hard to grasp but you seem to think the presence of background extinction is the same as extinction happening at an accelerated rate. You have no idea how science works if you think the greenhouse effect is fraudulent and the evidence against it is being suppressed; or you are being willfully dishonest by conflating uncertainty in science (which is ever presence by the very nature of scientific inquiry) with complete ignorance.It seems to me that economics is more like a religion than climate science; you take a faith based position that the market solves all and follow from there. I started with your position but when I did relevant courses at a university level that involved looking at data sets and land use change it swayed me. I can honestly say that when I thought climate change was a hoax I was seeing the world through a right wing lens and I didn't think
about the issue objectively. Even though I'm not completely objective now (who can ever be?) I feel I'm being more open minded by being open to evidence.

You simply got brainwashed and now you have to defend an alarmist position that is embarrassing. You are trying have it both ways by talking about uncertainty and then making statements about the planet that look certain. People are tired of this. If you don't like skeptical scientists but are okay with retired generals this doesn't help your argument.

The video of pentagon officials planning for realistic scenarios and having contingent plans for worst case scenarios shows how much of an alternative reality you are living in. There were climate sceptic generals who changed their mind when tasked with investigating the evidence in an honest way. When you "investigate" it's a case of starting with the conclusion (climate change is a marxist hoax to steal money from the first world) and shaping the evidence to satisfy it.Because some of the animals it effects are humans and it costs us money in the future to deal with the consequences.

Hello there are lots of Marxists involved in the green movement. The founders of greenpeace attested to that. BTW it doesn't cost us money it costs us more money than we can afford. Unless you just want to get your foot in the door and only in a token fashion regulate CO2, but then it's not an emergency then is it? We have marxists in the U.N. that want "global governance" and

During your stellar education did you learn about the precautionary principle and weighing costs of action versus inaction?Could it be that they just aren't doing the original research in the first place and the entire point of the media campaign by the denialist machine is to keep people unconvinced? You posted an article about citations which says nothing about credible scientists being blocked from publication.Obviously not the world you live in, but for the rest of us there are neat resources like Climate Change: Evidence which demonstrate the impact on the natural world.Why should this privilege only extend to climate change? Can't we have evolution sceptics judge the fairness of biology articles, stork theory advocates judge human reproduction, or homeopaths judge medical journals?

So people who are skeptical are the same as creationists?

BTW Nasa has it's own problem with temperature divergences in satellites vs. land observation starting at 1990 when cold stations were removed. It's just one more reason to not look at NASA's resume and swoon like you do.

The extraordinary claim is that climate sceptics are a beleaguered minority who are protecting the truth from a nefarious cult of globalists led by Al Gore who control all the other scientists by abusing peer-review systems and that real sceptics need special privileges to get their ideas out there.A free-market solution to the marketplace of ideas. People should just buy what they like and let the market decide the truth. If people don't want climate change then we can vote and decide that it's not real simple as that.What people want from science? I think this sums up your attitude that science should be about telling people what they want to hear

We don't know how much is natural and human induced climate change. That's the problem. If this would actually be figured out with certainty there would be no debate. It's either a crisis or it's not. The limitation on fossil fuels is not a problem for centuries but it will be a problem eventually. We should improve the technology so we don't damage the economy unnecessarily. This is prudent action. If we had good enough technology to replace fossil fuels I would be okay with doing a change ASAP because there would still be cheap energy. Peer reviewed uncertainty is not good enough.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think my willingness to admit that I don't know anything about economics shows intellectual honesty. That you take it as a sign of weakness or stupidity shows something else entirely.

I don't think the scientists you like are intellectually honest. This is precisely because they ostracize other real scientists from journals and magazines because they actually don't want a real debate about their studies. It's a sign of corruption.

 

[BVS]

I don't think the scientists you like are intellectually honest. This is precisely because they ostracize other real scientists from journals and magazines because they actually don't want a real debate about their studies. It's a sign of corruption.

Sign of corruption or junk science?

Would you allow a true communist economist in a legitimate economic magazine?

Would you allow a Holocaust denier in a legitimate historical discussion?

Would you allow the godhatesfags church in a collection of legitimate churches?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Unlike the other cases godhatesfags has quite a bit of evidence on their side; Yaweh comes across as quite queerphobic.

With climate science, economics, and historical inquiry people can appeal to evidence; when it comes to God I don't think anybody can legitimately claim to have evidence of the deities opinions and intentions.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think the scientists you like are intellectually honest. This is precisely because they ostracize other real scientists from journals and magazines because they actually don't want a real debate about their studies. It's a sign of corruption.

I'm not a climatologist so I need to listen to experts who have fought tooth and nail to reach an evidence-based position. The fact that their arguments are consistent with areas which I'm more familiar with (e.g. Cretaceous hothouse climates for which I've literally dug up evidence) gives me confidence in their position.

I take the self-interest of scientists to publish widely respected papers and attract more grants as a good reason to trust the results. If a research team was systematically lying then the scientist who exposed them would attract prestige and they would loose their funding. Like any conspiracy theory your argument requires thousands of self-interested agents to cooperate against their best interests and be actively dishonest. It's simply unsustainable for that many workers to lie for that much time without somebody blowing the whistle and providing the evidence (e.g. unambiguous data sets which were distorted by the conspirators).

You're a lot like a creationist who wants to openly debate credible scientists in the public arena. They know that they can manipulate anomalies and gaps to make the lay audience think the science is fundamentally unsound even though they can't come up with any reliable arguments that make predictions about the natural world. It's about PR more than finding out about the natural world.

You're an obscurantist; you deliberately want to muddy the waters and create uncertainty about science with a reasonably high degree of confidence. You make sure that you conflate scientific uncertainties (e.g. the magnitude of the effects) with complete ignorance (e.g. we don't know if CO2 effects climate). And its all to keep your economic ideology afloat and drive that wheel of ongoing consumerism without having to cost any environmental impacts. I'm not an economist and I don't know what economic model can deliver long term happiness in the best way but I think your free market fundamentalism overrides your ability to consider evidence openly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You simply got brainwashed and now you have to defend an alarmist position that is embarrassing. You are trying have it both ways by talking about uncertainty and then making statements about the planet that look certain. People are tired of this. If you don't like skeptical scientists but are okay with retired generals this doesn't help your argument.

I don't think that I'm being alarmist. I say that we should fund more inquiry and take precautionary steps with a longer term goal of becoming carbon neutral while you rant about global marxist government. The reason that I posted the video with the generals was to demonstrate that this is an issue with real world implications which are being considered from a national security standpoint. I don't think the Pentagon is a bastion of Marxism so this makes it evidence against interest.

I have no problem with sceptical contrarian scientists because I think they help identify areas that need clarification. The process is richer for having people like Lindzen around. But I think it's important to have the scientific dialogue take place in an arena of accountability and peer review. Especially when there are so many financial interests at stake with the outcome of the science. You seem to want a system of "fairness" where all ideas no matter how farfetched and false are given equal footing with strongly supported ones, and frankly that isn't how science works. If persuasive evidence comes forward that shows CO2 isn't involved in climate change and that there's no reason to worry about human emissions the state of knowledge will change.

I have a problem with a massive distortions and manipulations by right-wing politicians. I have a problem with characters like Monckton injecting falsehoods into the public sphere. Have you ever thought why positions on climate change get so utterly divided along political lines?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Here's an article by a historian and philosopher of science which is highly sensible.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

 

[A_Wanderer]

The third and most comprehensive enquiry

Climategate scientists cleared by British inquiry

The scientists whose leaked emails sparked a heated debate and speculation over the quality of research into climate change have been cleared by an independent inquiry in Britain.

The six-month inquiry cleared the climate scientists of accusations that they manipulated their data, but criticised them for being too secretive and defensive about their research.

It was alleged the researchers abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the process that determines which scientific studies are published in journals and subsequently enter the official records.

But the inquiry panel said it had not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is the third inquiry into the email affair, dubbed 'Climategate', and clears the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and his colleagues of the most serious charges.

The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open in how they responded to requests for information from outside the scientific community.

When 13 years of emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were hacked into and released online last year, the ripples spread around the world.

Climate change sceptics seized on the emails to argue the scientists were manipulating and suppressing their data to support predetermined theories on man-made climate change.

Professor Edward Acton, from the University of East Anglia, says the findings "show there was ... absolutely nothing to hide."

The inquiry concludes the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt and they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism.

But Sir Russell Muir, who led the investigation, says their work could have been more transparent.

"The question that arises was openness in relation to how that science was then being challenged, being discussed, and the commerce that there was between them and critics and critics and challengers right round the world," he said.

Also criticised was a graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, showing temperatures from 1850 ticking up sharply at the end of the 20th century.

The inquiry found the graph was misleading, but not intentionally so.

The findings have not quelled the mistrust of climate change sceptics like Lord Nigel Lawson, from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"For scientists to be misleading the public and misleading the politicians on an issue where huge decisions, huge expensive decisions are going to be based on this, that is very disreputable," said the former British chancellor.

"The lack of openness is disreputable - the failure to acceed to freedom of information requests is disreputable."

'Attitudes have changed'

Douglas Keenan, an independent campaigner for accountability in science, argues the inquiry was not thorough.

But he says openness in the scientific community has improved in the wake of Climategate.

"There's no question that attitudes have changed and not just at the University of East Anglia," he said.

"I have also had requests based on the UK Freedom of Information Act ... for example Queens University Belfast, and I have noticed a marked change in their attitude and manner since all of this has happened."

Bob Ward, from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, says Climategate might make it harder to recruit researchers.

"To be put under that kind of scrutiny is very difficult and I think some researchers will think long and hard about the extent to which they are willing to be identified as public individuals," he said.

"Some of these people get abusive emails - they're attacked publicly.

"It is not the kind of thing that I think anybody would relish."

The inquiry might be over but the debate about global warming continues with researchers' methods firmly under the microscope.

Climategate scientists cleared by British inquiry - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Diemen]

But the inquiry panel said it had not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[...]

The inquiry concludes the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt and they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism.

Guess the independent inquiry panel must be in on the conspiracy, too.

 

[purpleoscar]

Sign of corruption or junk science?

Would you allow a true communist economist in a legitimate economic magazine?

Would you allow a Holocaust denier in a legitimate historical discussion?

Would you allow the godhatesfags church in a collection of legitimate churches?

Not even close. You should just give up if that's the best you can do.

 

[purpleoscar]

The third and most comprehensive enquiryClimategate scientists cleared by British inquiry - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A lot of this stuff already accords with what I said on freedom of information requests but unfortunately it's still a whitewash since this topic:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/climategate-lies-206600.html#post6825217

hasn't been satisfied.

Secondly we have the "hockey team" trying to influence the supposedly independent review with this letter:

http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Letter_to_Sir_Muir_Russell_Climate Scientists_26 May.pdf

This despicable letter would get any company in trouble with their auditor and fuels more beliefs of a whitewash with skeptics:

Sneaky, bullying, self-pitying Climategate scientists write to Sir Muir Russell inquiry begging: 'Make it a whitewash hat trick!' – Telegraph Blogs

It's obvious that they don't want transparency and anyone who's ever taken a basic ethics course needs to know that transparency and dealing with stakeholders is a basic minimum for institutions. If East Anglia has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of transparency then that's what will have to be done. You see science doesn't care what affiliation you have or what your resume is. All the skeptics can do with transparency is test hypothesis for themselves and see how scientists came up with their conclusions and find something wrong with it. Since that is the scientific method what is Michael Mann so worried about? "A chilling effect"? Why would there be a chilling effect if their studies are so good?

If anyone told an auditor what to do like Mann and Co. just did they would be fired. When you talk about skeptics and entitlement we can see that AGW supporters are entitled to not be truely peer-reviewed.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So your source is a Telegraph blog writer?

This is a clear exoneration of the scientists that goes against the allegations that they manipulated climate science data. But as usual you're ignoring the important facts of the matter and inflating a sideshow to distract from your fraudulent claims being exposed.

If there's an article of faith its your belief that global warming is a hoax - you're utterly unpersuadable to reasonable evidence.

 

[BVS]

Not even close. You should just give up if that's the best you can do.

Oh, so that hack that you posted doing backyard experiments in aquariums should be considered for journals because he's on the same level?

Really? Please explain why it's not even close?

 

[purpleoscar]

Really? Please explain why it's not even close?

Read your own post. What does it have to do with skeptical scientists unless you believe all the skeptics aren't scientists? Calling a guy a hack, who did a basic CO2 experiment that is proven in real life, doesn't mean anything. BTW that was one post out of many other scientists I posted who have even bigger concerns with the IPCC. Connecting communists with skeptical scientists is not even close. Your statement sounds desparate.

Do you think blacklisting skeptical scientists or calling them names (simply becuase they disagree) is going to stop them?

The whitewash review is going to be reviewed in turn:

You Can’t Be Serious! � Climate Audit

Did you actually think that the debate was going to end with these three "independent" reviews? If you ignore the science in an inquiry what kind of investigation is that? These universities have reputations to protect. In auditing you have to not only be independent you must also appear independent. The left complains about businesses being unethical and not taking into account stakeholders but when talking about AGW that standard is ignored and with the letter I posted it's now an entitlement that there be less transparency.