The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[purpleoscar]

Here's a sensible email:

Climategate 2 FOIA 2011 Searchable Database | 1656

2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: "Douglas Maraun" <REDACTED>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: REDACTED

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:

"Climate science and the media"

After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
after the "inconvenient truth" case and the Nobel peace prize going to
Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
"climatism" appeared also in respectable newspapers.
Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:

-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not
especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.

See you later,
Douglas
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
REDACTED3857
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas

[Canadiens1131]

Sad to see. However, this is how the scientific community works; some people are assholes.

Just look at the recent scandal in the psychology community with the revelation that Stapel forged a huge amount of work.

In the case of Climategate, I still feel there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it conveniently supports your political ideologies, though. The stink the U.S. conservative wing makes about it is clearly not intended to find any kind of scientific merit or move the research forward, and is so blatantly self-serving to their corporate support and interests it makes one want to club a seal vigorously.

I wonder if there are many conservatives who are actually interested in the scientific research and discussion, or if the entire thing is seen as winning moral points back against the left while conservative representatives couldn't give a flying fuck about science. Kind of amusing to watch the right grasp for some figurehead to demonize in the whole thing and they come up with Al Gore and his fucking boring movie about him standing on ladders and badly-rendered CGI globes. Please; this is amateur shit.

And then you have iron horse and INDY who gleefully post about "how about that global warming?" when it snows heavily in their towns. I can't decide if they're serious or just poking fun at those who ignore long-term trends in favour of what happened yesterday.

[purpleoscar]

I still want real studies but until this scandal is dealt with and skeptics are answered with good science I fear it will continue. I certainly would like something else to do with my time but the evidence of bias keeps piling on and piling on everyday and it looks worse and worse. Certainly new sciences like climatology and psychology are ripe with paradigm shifts whereas physics takes longer now to reach new understandings.

Man it just keeps coming:

BBC’s Kirby admission to Phil Jones on “impartiality” | Watts Up With That?

Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics as he conveys it to Dr. Phil Jones. Clearly, there an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>

At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:


Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

h/t to WUWT reader “varco”. If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.

Here’s the Wikipedia bio on Kirby:

Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues. He worked in various capacities at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for nearly 20 years. From 1987 to 1996, he was the environmental correspondent for BBC News, in radio and television. He left the BBC in 1998 to work as a freelance journalist. He also provides media skills training to companies, universities and NGOs. He is also currently the environmental correspondent for BBC News Online, and hosted BBC Radio 4‘s environment series, Costing the Earth. He has no formal scientific training.

He writes a regular column for BBC Wildlife magazine.

[PhilsFan]

EPA sounds alarm on fracking in Wyoming - Dec. 9, 2011

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DlNG

[the iron horse]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that chemicals from "fracking," a controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground, have polluted groundwater in Wyoming.

The findings represent the first time in the heated debate over fracking that the agency has drawn such a connection, which has long been claimed by environmental activists.

~from the link PhilsFan posted



I agree this concern should be addressed, but this does not relate to
what, I think, is the current myth of global warming.

[PhilsFan]

The people who are telling you that there is no global warming are the same people who say fracking is safe. That is no coincidence.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The people who are telling you that there is no global warming are the same people who say fracking is safe. That is no coincidence.

And the people who are telling you global warming is real are the same
people who will read the article you posted and not think beyond their
preconcieved agenda.

[PhilsFan]

The people who are telling others that global warming is real are people who are basing it off research collected legitimately. Those who say it is not real are basing it off illegitimate research.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The people who are telling others that global warming is real are people who are basing it off research collected legitimately. Those who say it is not real are basing it off illegitimate research.

That is your opinion. I guess we could go on and on with a tit
for tat, but it would not presuade either of us.


I'm cutting firewood in the morning. The world will not end.

[PhilsFan]

I'm driving out in the woods in my SUV to cut firewood, fishing with my bare hands, and then cooking said fish by fire whilst smoking Lucky Strikes. Will there be raw milk? Oh yes. Bible readings? YOU BET!

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm driving out in the woods in my SUV to cut firewood, fishing with my bare hands, and then cooking said fish by fire whilst smoking Lucky Strikes. Will there be raw milk? Oh yes. Bible readings? YOU BET!

Sounds like a good weekend to me.





Take care

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

That is your opinion.

no. it's not an opinion. it is a fact.

I guess we could go on and on with a tit
for tat, but it would not presuade either of us.

it wouldn't be tit for tat. he would be right, and you would be wrong, but you would pretend like you each have a legitimate viewpoint but in reality you don't and he does, because the overwhelming scientific research is on his side and not yours. you're assuming that there's equal validity to your opposing viewpoints, but there isn't. there's not an opinion to be had on science.

it's like you're saying, "well, it's just your opinion that the world is round."

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

no. it's not an opinion. it is a fact.



the overwhelming scientific research is on his side and not

it's like you're saying, "well, it's just your opinion that the world is round."

At one point in life, the overwhelming "scientific research" said that the world was indeed flat. JUST SAYING

[PhilsFan]

Yes, our science today is very comparable to the science they had in the eleventh century. That is an outstanding retort.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yes, our science today is very comparable to the science they had in the eleventh century. That is an outstanding retort.

Can we firmly, without a doubt, say that our science today is completely accurate? Eh. Probably a debate for another time.

I really wasn't trying to use that to refute global warming. Honestly, I don't know that much about the scientific facts behind it. It seems plausible; it certainly agrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not sold on whether humans massly contribute to it or not yet, however.

[purpleoscar]

I wish the left would get irritated more about windfarms than just fracking.

Wildlife Extra News - Massive bird kill at US wind farm

More than 2,000 golden eagles killed
At the end of September, at the Mount Storm facility in the Allegheny Mountains, 59 birds and two bats were killed in one evening. Thirty of the dead birds were found near a single wind turbine that was reported to have had internal lighting left on overnight. This incident stands in stark contrast to industry assertions that just two birds per year are killed on average by each turbine. Data from Altamont Pass, California wind farms - the most studied in the nation - suggest that more than 2,000 golden eagles alone have been killed there.

'The good news is that it shouldn't be hard to make changes that will keep these sorts of unnecessary deaths from happening again, but it's disturbing that they happened at all. It has long been known that many birds navigate by the stars at night, that they normally fly lower during bad weather conditions, and that artificial light can draw them off course and lead to fatal collision events.

Based on this I call an end to windfarms

I love this "not in my backyard" retort:

Britain’s Prince Philip blasts high-cost wind farm industry as ‘useless’ | Full Comment | National Post

Even Prince Charles, usually supportive of whatever environmental position is the cause of the day, considers wind turbines “a blot on the landscape” and thinks they should only be built well out to sea where they can’t bother anyone.

You can demonize any position but ultimately people want a good standard of living and cheap energy.

[BVS]

The wind farms in west Texas are amazing, the design of the blades don't spin fast enough to kill anything. The investment has already paid for itself, ahead of schedule. It's profitable, cheap, and powering big chunks of Texas, and they're not even done.

It's the kind of success story conservatives like to sweep under the rug.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

That is your opinion.

No, you base your stance on this issue on opinion, but the rest of us look at facts.

You have never once posted a fact based article on this topic; you've posted opinion pieces, you've said Jesus wouldn't allow it, and once you even posted a poll that proved to be a fraud.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

At one point in life, the overwhelming "scientific research" said that the world was indeed flat. JUST SAYING

No it didn't. Ancient navigators in Phonecian times implicitly understood the Earth to be a globe.

The cosmological controversies (the dominant Aristotilean worldview embraced by medieval European Christendom) that got Galilleo into so much trouble implicitly understood the Earth to be a globe. The question was whether the entire surrounding universe orbited it embedded in a series of crystalline spheres, or whether (as proved the case) we were the ones orbiting a greater body (the sun).

----------

There's certainly no cause for the scientists (or more accurately, philosophers) of the eleventh century or earlier to suck up to us; they did very, very well with the information available to them. But that's an aside for another day.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

No it didn't. Ancient navigators in Phonecian times implicitly understood the Earth to be a globe.

The cosmological controversies (the dominant Aristotilean worldview embraced by medieval European Christendom) that got Galilleo into so much trouble implicitly understood the Earth to be a globe. The question was whether the entire surrounding universe orbited it embedded in a series of crystalline spheres, or whether (as proved the case) we were the ones orbiting a greater body (the sun).

----------

There's certainly no cause for the scientists (or more accurately, philosophers) of the eleventh century or earlier to suck up to us; they did very, very well with the information available to them. But that's an aside for another day.

Oops I stand corrected!