Here
and
Now

opinions

Climategate: The fix is in

159 Comments
By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data, but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "Where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor" -- hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights.

Michael Mann replies: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a U.N. report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

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

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

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

© RealClearPolitics

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

159 Comments
Login to comment

Well said!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stupid, one-sided article by a guy who doesn't know a thing about science. The crime would be to take this article seriously. The "hide the decline" story, for example, has been taken completely out of context and misinterpreted badly by the author. There was nothing nefarious about what was done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@kommentator, looks like you are scared about this news? environmetal activist????? They always say. the truht is the hardest thing to understandand it looks like your the best example. I would also be disapointed if my world would fall apart by the lies of science. so sorry fot that. But blame the scientist not the messenger........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kommentator is aiding and abetting criminals with a stupid, one-sided rebuttal that, with a simplistic and nonsensically dismissive wave that speaks nothing whatsoever about science or what should be plainly obvious to anyone whose eyes aren't glassed over with rabid and intractable belief. The "hide the decline" (which is a direct quote, which later became a story) wasn't taken out of context. The meaning was obvious, and the evidence (that actually shows the context) is both irrefutable and indefensible.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

Scientists commiting fraud is proof only that scientists commit fraud. If Denialists want to pretend it means more than that, it is just a sign of their lack of logic.

Anyways, he destroyed his position with that second last paragraph. Which abundant sources of energy is he talking about - coal, oil, nuclear? Guess he is unaware that the IEA's estimates of global oil reserves are, according to many people, fraudulent, and that Peak Oil is already here. Or is fraud OK in that case? Can always drive a coal car or fly a nuclear plane I guess. Can't use anything solar or electric, cause that would due to FRAUD!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From RealClimate: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink.

Nonsensical crap written by a non-scientist and obviously someone who only disapproves of the scientific process when it gives him an answer he doesn't like. Groupthink would better apply to Tracinski and company, who appear to want to deny climate change because of ideology, not science.

Regardless of whether or not there is any evidence of falsification, the peer review process works and the evidence FOR global warming is too big to be the work of a wicked cabal in England.

Throw in the paranoid garbage about conspiracies and the mainstream media (doesn't Fox count?) and it's the same old bleating we've been hearing for years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

insofar as being afraid of data is concerned, that's about as far as it goes. Insofar as being useful is concerned, we have things like insurance, vaccines and pensions. I guess the argument is being make that we should get rid of those too if we were to follow the logic? They also cost money and are also not 100% certain. But we don't, because the overall benefit is there.

If one insurance company is a fraud, all insurance companies are? If one piece of math is wrong, all math is wrong? Seriously?

Insurance companies are going out of business, too many claims from too many ever increasing disasters. How many new vaccines will we need when vaccine capacity is limited? No one has a safe pension with everyone's country in debt. Think of applications, show some perspective. T-H-I-N-K.

Squabbling scientists just mean their human. Weather turns out to be a whole lot more complicated. Expecting a linear result from a non linear system is wrong. Aiming for 350 ppm is still a worthy goal, emails or not. If some science is wrong, DOESN"T mean all science is wrong. That's childish.

Even better, if it means a temporary respite, then now is the time to dump your SUV and get going on society renewal, walkable liveable communities, before TSHTF. Live like Japan actually. Public Transit etc.

Tripe articles like this and all the comments out there aim to stop all momentum towards self sufficiency resilience and responsibility.

Now that is the real tragedy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to counter this article I'd like to suggest Dmitri Orlov here: http://energybulletin.net/node/50582

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People comlaining this is "out of context".... Please explain the code, taken from the hacked data files, that is listed below, also list what it does.

If you dont know what the code does, the programe remark that appears first is like the title for the subroutine that follows. Follow this link for a further breakdown: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447

; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I found one error in your comment. Therefore your entire comment is wrong. Do you see how silly this is?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry about the Code, the paste ate the return lines

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-

0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ ;

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also sf2k,

your comparisons dont equate. Hadley was THE storage site for the most of the planets climate data. Almost anyone researching the climate goes to Hadley for the data....finding out they cooked their numbers does alot more than "prove a handful of scientists were bad".

It invalidates the vast majority of climate research done in the last 15 years, because they all used the corrupted data, so even honest scientists got burned in this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf,

Yes I see what you mean. It is also unfortunately irrelevant but let me try to explain... Those good scientists are watching things and recording things, like insect migrations, photosynthesis reduction in wheat and grains, acidity of ocean water on crustaceans, water loss in the Asian subcontinent due to glacier reductions etc etc... All are problems. All are showing us change whether I have climate model or not. This is what nature is showing us.

Their model and storage system for analysis may be corrupt, but the world is in a state of change, and this is quite literally not seeing the forest for the insect infested trees.

The model is not reality, only a model. The reality is now even more frightening, and that's what no one is discussing, and missing the point on.

Hope that makes sense

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the cascade of science in the extinction of frogs, plants and ice landmass are enough as external interesting articles, then putting them together, under any model, under any system, must mean the gig is up. We need to stop killing everything. In spite of this, I can't see how that conclusion changes.

That they messed something as serious as this is why we must not keep messing this up and appreciate the real live changing and ever-worsening data, while refactoring a flexible model.

But at some point you just go, hey, better change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's something extremely creepy about hacking into other people's emails and interpreting their words - 'trick' being a case in point where, in science, it's used in different ways, not all of them deceitful. Global temperatures don't simply go up year to year - they fluctuate but essentially the planet is getting warmer, and if it keeps getting warmer (which it undoubtedly will) then the planet's inhabitants are in for a difficult time with water and food resources becoming more scarce. Even if you don't believe the realities of global warming, as another poster mentioned earlier, oil is running out - or at least the oil that is sufficiently cheap to get at. It's a perfect time for more wind, nuclear and solar energy as cleaner alternatives for when the time comes when oil cannot meet our needs. The earth is warming and the human population is continuing to rise. This means more people being fed by a smaller irrigable land area. Something has to give; we have to deal with climate change, we have to deal with ever-increasing pollution, and we need a debate on population numbers - now rather than later. Any simplistic idea or argument such as the writer's, whose desperation to believe that climate change is a myth is fallacious and downright dangerous. You're in denial, and that denial will help to ruin us all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes Jonswan,

Peak Oil will merge with this quite well, as then the polluters can't pollute and can't make use of coal because its so dirty and all our systems don't use coal. Also given the massive respiratory illnesses since then, highly improbable in use.

Without oil based pesticides the land use crops will dwindle back down to their natural pre-maxed limit, and population will crash on the Asian Subcontinent, as well as other areas who are beyond their means. Whether this will be due to lack of water from glacier melt or energy really will be moot compared to the tragedy.

Climate change though will then continue onwards in whatever capacity at whatever rate since carbon dioxide lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere.

Ultimately, we'll end up planting about 25 trees per person everywhere if we are serious. That's at least something we can do. That's not bad as responsibilities go, and certainly not the only one, but its at least reasonable and marginally hopeful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k,

I have not seen anyone say the climate does not change. Heck a simple history book proves that.

Its the rate of change, and whether its man-caused, thats the issue. And thats what the data manipulation at hadley dealt with. It artificially inflated the temerature data in order to cause the sharp increase. The funny thing is if you take the real, raw, temperature data, it does not show an increase in temperature. The increasing temperatures dont show up until after they run the temp data through their computers to "correct all the variations".

The fact of the matter is that there are times in the past where CO2 has been much higher than now, yet been colder....and where CO2 has been lower, and temps been higher. Greenland was once green, and Iceland was once frosty......long befor humans started impacting thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since we can't accept the data from CRN, then neither one of us can go back to the same data to make another point.

But if the birds in my neighbourhood next spring continue to just miss the insect hatching again though, then I wonder why the birds who are long since established in their evolutionary niche are suddenly suffering. There are many examples.

Take an example. Then another, and another. Let's not take a model that is now in question if the reality on the ground is more compelling a witness to change and to its direction.

As Dmitri Orlov wrote in the link I posted above, it's not even about pointing the finger. We can point the finger to ourselves, or even to nature as being at fault. So what. Now what do we do? Do we ignore change in the world or act instead? Let's just act now and metaphorically put the fire out so to speak instead of pointing fingers while our houses burn down.

We are committed now to a massive global experiment that has never existed before. And the other players in this game like the birds and frogs are unprepared.

It may be that as a new gas is in the atmosphere it naturally takes with it a temperature and over time represent a cooling (thus how a helium powered thermo-acoustic fridge works) in spite of its infrared capabilities. There's a quandry there to be sure.

I don't know the physical orbital situation with the earth at the time of Greenland being green, but I recall the CO2 was the same as pre-industrial revolution. This leads to awkward and highly subjective conclusions. We just live on an ever changing planet, and I would not take data as a linear system of weather after arguing earlier that it has never been linear.

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide has been being absorbed into the oceans, but may reach a limit. What happens when the limit is reached? The pH level of the oceans has risen, reducing the shell thickness of plankton and zooplankton. If they die the species of fish that feed on them do too. Other species will then arise or not. How can we really predict that?

Action needs to be taken on millions of issues, whether you follow climate change or not. Doing nothing is not an option any more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If no one wishes to lift a finger to help this planet and ourselves upon it, then that's your choice I suppose. But don't ask me to follow such a loser attitude. I don't honestly believe that you really believe doing nothing is okay. A Generation just went billions into debt and took the planet's banks to town, but it can't save the planet we live on. Really now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone that believes in the "science" of anthropogenic global warming should be very concerned about the evasions and outright fraud going on at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and among the leading UN IPCC climate scientists. The databases at CRU are used by climate researchers all over the world. As it turns out, the data has been manipulated by blending different types of temperature readings and by using computer code to massage the results. Any research based on bad data is itself bad and of little use.

How can anyone defend these revelations from the Climategate scandal:

1) Bad data: The scientists at CRU refuse to share their database with other scientists so tha their work can be replicated by other scientists. Now we know why, it is not good data and cannot be justified. In fact, the scientists at CRU have evaded the release of their databases so that they do not want to have to justify their data. That in itself raises red flags for anyone who is interested in the quality of climate research.

2) Attacking opposing viewpoints as illigitimate: what can possibly be the reason for the attacks upon competing science and actively attempting to censor it in climate research journals? Why have the IPCC scientists made this so personal? They seem to be trying to destroy journals and the reputations of scientists for simply disagreeing with them. If CRU's science is good, there is no need to try to personally destroy others reputations. These efforts have politics written all over it.

3) Evading transparency: not being able to explain their data and not making their data available to any and all climate researchers is just plain wrong for any scientist confident in their conclusions. For science to be considered legitimate, it must be repeatable by others.

No one disputes that there is such a thing as 'climate change'. Average global temperatures have gone up and down for as long as there has been a planet Earth. What is in dispute is the seemingly religious belief that average temperatures are increasingly dangerously due to mankinds use of carbon based sources of energy.

What is quite clear now is that the adherents of the man-made global warming religion are in denial that their bed-rock beliefs are very likely false (or at least questionable). The "science" of man-made global warming has been unmasked as a religeous ideology corrupted by it's leading proponents.

These revelations must be hard for them to comprehend and they will be angry and will likely lash out defensively. However, the idea of man-made global warming must return to square one with new data and scientific transparency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I laugh, and laugh hard at the whole silly religion of anthropogenic global warming and its many idiot believers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When did JT start pandering to conspiracy theories by apologists for the wasteful status quo most well-fed Western countries don't seem to have the vision to look beyond? Follow the money; this seems to be the only thing these global-warming-is-a-hoax folks really care about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Wolfpack

1) Bad data. I don't know about that. Actually taking the time to look into it (sigh) I find that using the word 'trick' doesn't mean crime. I code, aka program things, and often matching data to a graph requires coding. If this is all this guy was talking about, to take tree rings and then add it to the 1961 to present temperature ranges, then that is not fraud. What it is, is ignorance manifest in taking phrases out of context. This doesn't catagorically mean the tree data is bad data any more than a plot graph. (plot graphs are easier to read because outlandish data falls out of range of the general slop, depending on the x timeline)

2) Multi degreed dedicated PhD scientists who have devoted 20 years of their lives being haranged by ignorant losers might out of thousands of emails feel annoyed and frustrated. You might as well take IIRC out of context. This is not unique to climate change scientists, and makes them humans venting industry frustration. Lab coats are very touchie, any more than star programmers who fail basic javascript.. but anyway..

3) an acceptable point. But given that you or I do not have advanced calculus, chemistry and gant charts (ok, I've got some gant charts..) such information would only belittle what time they have explaining that the tool didn't go to school. Transparent to others of their industry would be fine, like a Physicians board etc.

I just don't get the vitriol of your posts. What I do get is that you will do nothing, and want to also help others do nothing.

Not even vaccines are 100%, nor insurance, nor even a pension. So we give up on all those too huh?

It's a logic missing reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

slop=slope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@escape_artist at 12:18 PM JST - 29th November <i>Follow the money; this seems to be the only thing these global-warming-is-a-hoax folks really care about.</i>

Yes, please DO follow the money! Follow it to the "scientists" who are getting billions in government grants to "study" a non-existant "problem" and to clowns like Al Gore, making billions on his carbon-trading scheme!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because some science is wrong, now all science is wrong? That's nuts, and any further subterfuge to the contrary is furthering what is increasingly a dishonest discussion, if it ever was.

I have taken the time to actually read. Don't further this thread. It's a waste of time.

Climate-gate is short for Boomers-Who-Failed-Both-Science-And-Computer-Class-And-Want-Us-To-Suffer-For-It---Gate

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - - some great news. The site Intrade allows people to speculate on the outcome of political events like they can on sports. The contract weighing the likelihood of passage of a carbon tax bill has dropped from 40 dollars to an all-time low of sixty cents!!

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=674141

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought that cows farting were the main culprit? I wasted a ton of money on 55-gal drums of Bean-no for my herd???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nice to see this story getting more coverage. The possibility of scientific fraud being conducted to support the global warming theory should have been the leading story in the mainstream media.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I laugh, and laugh hard at the whole silly religion of anthropogenic global warming and its many idiot believers.

Let me see here. There is a choice between two energy sources. Energy source A requires the constant discovery of new sources, a massive transportation network, and is a depleting resource. It will face increasing costs of production and, as a mature industry, is will be more and more difficult to reduce costs through technical innovation. It will at some point reach a production peak where the amount of energy used in the extraction and transport will exceed the amount of energy extracted. Some people argue that point is very close or even already here, but that that information is being withheld and that fraudulent figures are being produced to avoid panic and instability in the world economy and markets. It also creates massive amounts of political instability, pollution, and a large percent of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. However, some people don't think global warming is actually happening and claim the science behind it is a fraud.

Energy source B on the other hand requires no exploration or transportation and is unlimited. It faces continually falling costs of production as new technologies come on line. It does not create political instability, pollution, or greenhouse gases.

And the correct choice is of course energy source A!!!! Because Global Warming is a RELIGION and the people who believe in it are IDIOTS and people are making MONEY from it!!!!

Hehehe, tell me again, who is an idiot?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps something fraudulent was afoot but I still find the article just as biased as the people he is "outing". You all can argue as much as you want about stats, science and numbers, but there is all kinds of evidence all around us. Yes, global warming is happening. No, we are not causing it, it happens naturally in a cycle. However, humans are speeding up the process somewhat, which is making it hard for many species to adapt as they would have if things were going at a natural rate.

And you think global warming is not happening and the sunshine, flowers and lollipops in your world are just going to stay as they are? Lucky you. Tell that to the people in Tuvalu or those in the Maldives. Or perhaps you can take a look at the incredible decline of corals all over the world. How about the melting of the ice caps that went a long way to regulating temperatures on our planet? Sure these things are probably meant to happen...just not this fast.

Instead of arguing back and forth about whether we are to blame for global warming or if it is a natural occurrence, why don't we work a little harder on adapting to it? It is happening whether we like it or not, whether we are causing it or not, and we are going to have to sink or swim. (Ha! Pun was not intended, but there it is!) Whether or not we are actually making global temperatures rise faster that nature intended or whether it is happening at all, the fact remains we have made a horrible mess of our home.

Oh, and no matter what side of the fence you sit on...we are definitely NOT killing the Earth. We are making it sick, that is for sure. But we are a species and like many species, one day, we are going to be gone and the planet will heave a huge sigh of relief and bounce back.

And I don't need to be an activist, politician or scientist to figure that stuff out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-

0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

**This is an array of temperature 'adjustments', added to each element of the array by year. If that was not already explicitly clear by the "fudge factor" comment at the end of the array.

If you are a computer researcher, maybe you should be doing a little less defending and deflecting, and dig into the "code" yourself.

People are reverse engineering the code, the emails may have been juicy, the code is downright criminal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many times has oil supposedly been on the brink of exhaustion? Many times now, and yet, we still have oil. How much oil reserves do we have that we can't touch in the United States? Nobody really knows cause we can't touch it. Doesn't Canada have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia? As far as I know, we haven't touched that yet... Not saying that oil is an unlimited resource and we shouldn't be turning to other sources for our automobiles and stuff, but I wish people would stop scaring people with Peak Oil nonsense.

So what is Energy Source B, Mr. GJDailleult? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Geo-thermal? All are fine and dandy, but how much would be needed to fully power the United States? China?

Climate change may or may not be man-made, and I'm all for yuppies who want to save the earth by buying those special lightbulbs, drive the Chevy Volt (buy American!), paint their roofs ugly white, buy clothing made out of hemp, build houses out of bamboo, reduce, reuse, and recycle and all that good stuff. Those people probably won't care about Climategate (what a stupid name).

But then, a lot of this data (that these scientists were working on) will be used to by nations as a basis to push their carbon reduction schemes. And some of the things in these emails and the data itself should definitely raise some questions.

How can anybody who is supports SCIENCE even defend these guys? These guys were talking about blackballing certain science journals, deleting vital information, circumventing certain laws, basically denying skeptics.

Isn't science defined by skeptics?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just don't see how being skeptical is a bad thing when it comes to science. And I guess a lot of other people feel the same way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with this editorial in the National Post of Canada, which I had to turn to because American sources are all supposedly controlled by big scary, faceless multinational companies that want to enslave us.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

"At the upcoming Copenhagen conference, governments are expected to fail to agree to an ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s a more modest, if mundane goal for them: They should agree to share the data from their national meteorological services so that independent scientists can calculate global climatic temperature and identify the roles of carbon dioxide and the sun in changing it. "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daoster - If something can not continue forever, then it won't. The only question is when it will stop. Peak oil will be here sooner or later, and it is hypocritical for people to work themselves into a frenzy over claims of fraud in climate science (because that fits with their thinking) and ignore claims of fraud in the calculation of oil reserves (because that doesn't). Personally I don't think it matters if climate change is happening or not, because the energy change is going to come anyways. It will just be a question of whether the other sources can come online as fast as oil goes off, because they wouldn't be able to now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peak oil will be here sooner or later, and it is hypocritical for people to work themselves into a frenzy over claims of fraud in climate science (because that fits with their thinking) and ignore claims of fraud in the calculation of oil reserves (because that doesn't).

Sooner the better, I say. America sits on vast reserves of oil, and will one day be known as the Saudi Arabia of shale oil, but at the moment the collectivists and the crypto-Marxist modern Democrat Party will not allow us to exploit these resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To put it mildly, global climate change has been noted in other places besides Britain’s University of East Anglia. Calling it climategate is cute, but really a stretch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This story is irrelevant nonsense. Global warming has been the subject of discussion in the climate science community for many decades, long before these guys who allegedly cooked these data were even born. I was taught about it in graduate school in 1971, based on a run of data of more than 150 years duration at that time. As for the past ten years, any climate scientist will tell you that data of this kind do not speak to the issue at hand - every volcanic eruption causes a multi-year cooling, and there were several of these during the decades in question (can you say "Mount Pinatubo"?) The "average earth surface temperature", a datum developed by the Royal Society of London in the time of Isaac Newton, does not depend on data from tree rings. The trend upward, although not smooth (no climate data plot is ever smooth!), is steady, and has an extremely very high correlation with the coincident increase in tropospheric carbon dioxide content, from a historic four tenths of a percent to the present near one percent. The CO2 hypothesis itself is also more than seventy years old. I suggest, before you start calling this "proof" that global warming does not exist, that you go to a used bookstore, find a climate textbook written before this alleged data fudging, and read what it has to say on the subject of earth surface temperature increase. Either that, or go take a college course in the subject yourself, so that you will actually know what you are talking about! If you do not know what a running average is and how to calculate it, you are unqualified to have your own opinion about global warming, one way or the other. There is a reason that AAAS Science no longer publishes papers that question the existence of global warming - there are NO valid contrary data! All remaining legitimate scientific questions are about degree and consequences, not the fact of the warming itself or its cause. Any real climate scientist, or student of climate science, will tell you that - or do you get your "facts" from the media, who get nearly every science story wrong, and always have...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“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.

(New York Times)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, here's some breaking news I just learned: but first lets get some facts out of the way.

1: We know Hadley's data set has been tampered with. 2: The code in those emails appears, after reverse engineering, to be used to modify data files used to store the earths temperature data. 3: Here's the kicker... James Hansen is pretty much the climate go to guy for NASA, GISS, and GISS. So basically, who is left with credible data that didnt get their data from Hadley, NASA, or GISS......there's not alot left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thanks vdpphd~qwest-net

my only concern is that in fudging data it ruins the real model that can be created. I don't doubt a cooling along with the warming, but it would point to better trends and open source tickets not secluded databases. The non-linear nature of it would then be obvious but would still lend itself to planning. The overall trend needs to always be clear.

if like Ubuntu linux, there was a release candidate every 6 months, then we would see what state are we in now?

I have been aware of atmospheric science since 1992 myself and haven't questioned climate change theory. I still don't. But science can't work by painting itself into a corner by saying the ends justify the means (they do, life on earth etc), but still, it would have been better to own up to it, correct it, and carry on.

There are millions of observations. Let the observations, the data, speak for itself and create the model, not conform the data to a model that may be growing inaccurate.

This is the Third Option, and sits between the specific valid accountability points of the emails and also includes the chemistry and science of our scientists. This is an opportunity to really get people on board the science. People have to calm down, stop taking it personal, and really look at the data.

We have to take care of our home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf;

the data comes from people in the field, then amalgamated by whoever sent them there, then submitted forward for papers or some such process. If this can be corrected by one big re-submit, that would pretty much do it. Then let the data speak for itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ok vdpphd_qwest_net,

If you know so much, what is the temperature of the Earth "supposed" to be?

It should be a simple question to answer.

The fact of the matter is that global temperatures go up and down, all on their own, without any input from man. The simple fact that Mars polar frozen CO2, which has been melting as a mirror to ours, should tell you that the temperature swings are not caused by conditions on this planet.

Funy that you mention volcanos causing cooling though, 2 or so volcanic eruptions spew out more CO2 then all the automobiles on the planet.....funny that things get colder. Maybe CO2 is not a great leading factor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SteelWolf. No point in attacking people.

Google "blackbody". The earth as a blackbody object is calculated to be -18C (some math is involved) but thanks to greenhouse gases is obviously above that. (Thank you GHGs!) It would be nice to be consistent however so that crops do not fail and fish do not die of acidification of the oceans. (Whoops, lets back it down a bit GHGs!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a wikipedia showing the math on how to calculate the temperature of the earth. Their result is -24C. http://tinyurl.com/yf4cpgj

There may be other values. Who cares. Again, thanks to GHGs it is above this. We need to stay being Goldilocks! Too little not warm enough, too much and problems problems. Let's go for just right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k,

You're right, a re-submit with orriginal, untampered data would be the telling factor. the odd thing is when people have been requesting it using FOIA its repoted as "missing" for some ODD reason....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf;

I think its possible that some have been attenuating data that shows a cooling to prevent their model from crashing. By taking it too personally they end up being vilified and that's too bad.

But overall even with a cooling given the heat we've had over that last decade it would still show a trend. An uneven trend, but a trend nevertheless. Also a trend that varies on geography. We can't know the scale until a model was made. This is why I like the Ubuntu release dates of 6 months as a model. That way the pressure is off the model, and just about reports coming in.

This seems to be a disaster, but I think it's more a teaching moment. To appreciate the pressure the scientists have been under to prove a non-linear model may well surely fail. People feel excluded and thus allow them to question maybe too much so. People are reading this though, they are looking at the math and saying, 'oh'.

Change the process, include, be transparent, and don't be afraid of bumps in data. It's the earth talking. Hot Cold Dry Wet doesn't matter, its the carbon, its the stability of climate that matter's the most. That's the idea. We must take responsibility for our pollution and reduce it. Reduce a significant GHG and return our planet to something resembling normal again. People lived in 1990 too. I don't remember it being so bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh and can we get rid of the phrase "global warming"? Let's go with climate change. Change into what? I don't know. But it allows it to be hot OR cold OR whatever and still address issues of carbon dioxide and planetary stability

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"climate change"

Yep. It happens. We'll have to deal with it. But we can't stop it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am very thankful for climate change -without it life would be dire.

We should be thankful that the Earth/Sun doesn't listen to these nutters and doesn't keep a static temp.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really should be a little surprised that some people listen to hate-news, but sadly I am not surprised. Climate change has become obvious to the naked eye quite quickly and alarmingly in the past three years. Storms and floods, drought and insects populating areas previously inaccessible to them in the northern hemisphere and destroying crops and forests, permafrost thawing, Greenland ice receeding - the list goes on and on. Ask Britain. It's not a hype or a fabrication.

Understandably enough for anyone who knows what hackers and misinformers do for a living, the emails that got stolen were selected and quoted out of context to create a desired effect; this is why the scientists have not denied the emails are real, but have emphasized that not all the stolen emails were released by the hackers, and the quotes are out of context. Since the scientists have the original emails in their proper sequence and code classification numbers (Hello? Even memos and emails at simple public offices have serial numbers for classification) they are able to point out these things. Simply and plainly yes, there are vested interests behind keeping energy shifts at global scale. Any oil company could have paid these hackers. Remember Iraq war and oil companies? At first nobody wanted to see the elephant in the room; now it's old news.

However, a lot of people also believe in Roswell aliens, the Chupacabras and that the moon landing was staged. Go figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Azrael - How do we stop the storms, floods, drought, insects populating areas previously inacessible to then, pernafrost thawing and Greenland ice receding?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"ask Britain" -I have and I want the grape vines back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The whole affair summed up, and brilliantly so:

' You know, when you consider that ‘We’re Saving The Planet’ is the biggest power/money grabbing scam since ‘We’re Saving Your Souls,’ whoever leaked/released those e-mails and such is kind of like the modern scientific equivalent of Martin Luther. This person/persons may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God.” '

Col. Douglas Mortimer
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kommentator's explained it all rather well, so all I have to add is a wee bit on the quality of the piece:

The Hadley Center is in Exeter, The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is in Norwich. They are different institutions over 300 miles apart!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does this article read like a tin-foil hat treatise. If you have the goods can't you lay it out so it doesn't sound so sensationalized?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Serge: We can't.

All we can do is slow them down, minimize impact and remove the causes to prevent further effect. That is why global warming is an urgent issue: there is no way to fix the damage already done. What we can do is estimate what the immediate future damage is and stop doing what would cause it.

That is all. You can say goodbye to the world you knew. It may sound extreme, but it is the truth. The landscape will change even more within the next three decades. It will be... interesting, to say the least.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Azrael says:

All we can do is slow them down, minimize impact and remove the causes to prevent further effect. That is why global warming is an urgent issue: there is no way to fix the damage already done.

Man's impact on global climate has not bee proven to be significant in the first place, therefore attempting to cool or reduce the erroneously predicted increase in average temperatures through government action is futile. The hockey stick graph was proven false several years ago and Climategate shows how the data was manipulated by the scientists. More than the e-mails, check out the code and you can clearly see how the fraud was perpetrated.

If you are a Climategate "denier", open your mind and look at the serious breech of professionalism on the part of these scientists. They have not been transparent, they have been caught manipulating data, and have demonized those that have challenged their conclusions. That is not science, it is more politics and personal ideology at work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k says:

1) Bad data. I don't know about that. Actually taking the time to look into it (sigh) I find that using the word 'trick' doesn't mean crime. I code, aka program things, and often matching data to a graph requires coding.

The emails are bad enough, but the actual code shows how the data was manipulated to fit the prediction. Therefore, it is legitimate to conclude that the data is "bad" because this little "trick" was hidden. The emails and the code together show a coordinated effort by CRU and other IPCC connected scientists to change the data to back up their predictions of warming when it was not occurring.

2) Multi degreed dedicated PhD scientists who have devoted 20 years of their lives being haranged by ignorant losers might out of thousands of emails feel annoyed and frustrated.

Scientists are supposed to be open to other possibilities from other "multi degreed PhD scientists" who also have devoted their life to knowledge and discovery. Should scientists who have published in respected scientific journals be considered "ignorant losers" because they come to a different conclusion than some other scientists? The CRU scientists seem to think so. It doesn't make sense for the CRU and IPCC connected scientists to seek to ostricize other scientists with competing views and try to blacklist scientific journals that publish a competing point of view.

3) an acceptable point. But given that you or I do not have advanced calculus, chemistry and gant charts (ok, I've got some gant charts..) such information would only belittle what time they have explaining that the tool didn't go to school. Transparent to others of their industry would be fine, like a Physicians board etc.

It seems that we agree that the CRU scientists should be more transparent with their methods and data with respect to other scientists. However, why do you suppose they so actively attempted to keep from doing so; even to the point of considering the deletion of data instead of complying with a freedom of information request?

I just don't get the vitriol of your posts. What I do get is that you will do nothing, and want to also help others do nothing.

My opinions are not meant to be taken pesonally. I am only arguing my point of view. What I don't understand is that I am expected to be in favor of doing something based on flawed science and the work of scientists whose motivations are questionable? The insurance anology is faulty because the cost of man-made global warming theory cannot be quantified because it cannot even be proven. For insurance, the need for health care and car repairs can be proven and the costs can be quantified. The CRU and IPCC scientists work is so sloppy and unprofessional that their work needs to be thrown out altogether and the climate science redone.

There are many other natural reasons for changes in climate. There was a little ice age only a few hundred years ago. Changes in solar activity, ocean currents and wind patterns are all natural and re-occurring and have affected climate for millions of years. Rising and declining average temperatures shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a knowledge of the Earth's history. The only constant in the Earth's climate is change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: You are of course entitled to your own opinion. Please do consider the fact that you may be mistaken. In any case you may sit back and let others work. Statistically speaking it is impossible to get the 100% of any given work to support an idea before the consequences of non-action directly effects their life. Just don't go postal somewhere to stop positive social and economical changes (having cleaner energy resource options is only intelligent) - that would be unhelpful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Typo. "100% of any given work" should read "any given group." I deleted the wrong word. If any of the moderators would be so kind, please edit my post accordingly. Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: I addressed this more coherently at 5:52pm and elsewhere. Basically parsing data means fitting data. That's how graphs are made. If a graph is made of many data points the scales are not going to match. Adding a new scale to data to fit all other data is quite normal and by itself not a problem. However if data was deleted then that is the issue. We cannot know and not being up on my FORTRAN I don't really care beyond that

Transparency is really all this is about. But if in the end there is nothing here and just some snide remarks about raving nutters, then that is a job for better connections, and why I'd like to see an Open Source model implemented. This would remove the prospect of further hacking and engage the public to really look at the observations around us, in every country, and its underlying science and math. This is a teachable moment for improved connections and clarity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: adding to a point in an array is not deleting a point in the array. It's called scaling. If I have 100 million data points and multiply each by 5, the underlying real data hasn't changed, but been scaled. You might even call it vector scaling from a math textbook for deeper algorithms. That's all I see here, not data replacement. Thus adding or changing how the array related to all the other arrays of data is unknown because we don't see all the other arrays.

we are not forensic accountants. Thus an audit would resolve this issue, provide much needed transparency etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the climate change is true, we can't stop it regardless it is caused by man or nature... then government worldwide should have plan to move people from coastal areas to inland and start to invest much more into infrastructures there. As for us ,mere human, even we believe in climate change or not, we should do what we can like use less energy, reduce useless travellings, eat less meat more grains and vegies, plant more trees, try to live healthy life style so we don't rely too much on health system..etc and keep strict,critical eyes on governments direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

I see the new deniers are still out... deniers in "Mann Made Global Warming"

The above link is a good read. Its on a group of scientists who requested data from Hadley, and were denied. So they had to go out and compile their own data, and it doest match Hadley.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Azrael,

You can downplay the emails as out of context all you want.. If you think the emails are the smoking gun in the room, your wrong.

The emails may be able to be written off or cherry picked, even with as damning as they are. The real fire you should worry about is the contents of the code.

The actual comuter code, which CANNOT be taken "out of context" is showing that the data for the temperature records from about 1960 onwards have been tampered with. The subroutines in the code go in and modify the temp reading.

What is really Ironic...one of the guys I work with fed the climate model a bunch of random numbers for its input.....the graph came out the same way each time. No matter what numbers were fed to the code, a sharply increasing trend at the end of the century showed up.

If the emails are a smoking gun, the code is a B-52.... I'll wait for your response after you get get your talking points from DU or Huff n Puff Post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf: Thanks for the link. Again more to a prior point that we shouldn't wed ourselves to the data and just allow it to tell its story, not to force the data into a fixed model.

Doing so doesn't discount climate change, it just shows it to be a whole lot more complicated.

Cheers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's one website I found raw data people were looking at.

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

It proves 2 things:

This data scandal is being done by mare than just those that were hacked.

When the raw data is graphed, there is little, if any, actual temperature rise.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf,

that was not the conclusion of the French scientists. It depends on the averaging as stated in the NationalPost article that you yourself posted. They found a rise from 1987 but steady after that. It appears there's a 30 year cycle, cooling from the 1930s to 60s-70s, then warming ever since.

What is does show is that since 1987 temperature systems have created a new planetary plateau. This isn't necessarily good at all since this is the new baseline. Again is a NON LINEAR SYSTEM, and thus you can't keep applying your linear logic to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It does mean that the model from IPCC would have to change. Change means finding new understanding, not throwing out 100s of years of data, nor hiding it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Given the current weather, this new planetary plateau as stated in the French statistical modelling, is one we'd like to get off and go back to the previous more stable plateau. That still means reducing GHG emissions and being responsible non-polluting citizens and is not a free lunch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we have two new tidbits of data: 1) temperature appears to be on a sinusoidal curve, up and down, at a frequency of 30 years or so. 2) the previous plateau represents all of human history, and is something we know about. The new higher temperature plateau of 1987 onwards does not.

Now, put the two together. I can thus conclude that the sinusoidal curve will now use this higher plateau. High points of temperature, a curve we are now on btw, will reach higher than any recorded measurement. Even lower points along the frequency will still be higher than the previous plateau.

This means that the high point of the new plateau may in fact be unliveable by humans, and is in no way a refudiation of the climate change as a serious topic, and in in fact more dire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

please note that an average of a curve is a straight line, which is why you think it isn't changing. That's average. This is also noted as an example in the National Post link.

It would appear we have excited the atmosphere to a higher plane of operation, and given the species that is used to the former plateau, will thus be harmed.

We need a new mission, to return the earth to the previous plateau before we suffer the high range of the new curve.

Sorry if this bursts your bubble, but I thank you for the data.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The left has eschewed science in favor of redistributive change. The left sees profits in "green" and lied on a worldwide scale to line their own pockets. Those at the top (such as Al Gore) that pushed this so-called "science" should be arrested and/or sued for the biggest con the world has ever seen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mtimjoines,

wow, wholly subjective and useless comment. Al Gore is a modeller, not a scientist. The data speaks for itself and the carbon problem is more so, not less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does this discussion remind me of the American anti-evolution brigade?

Selective quote mining and a near-to-zero understanding of the science combined to make a political point.

The talking points in this article - and in a lot of the comments - have been dredged up (and soundly refuted) all over the web at this point. Makes no difference, I suppose. Climate Change isn't even the issue anymore. It's become an expression of where you stand on the political spectrum.

I wish people would wake up to the fact that they're being manipulated by a handful of neo-conservative lobby groups who are determined to make this issue a left vs. right issue, much like they've been doing with evolution in America.

Oh well. Good luck sifting through the e-mails, for those of you that actually are doing so, and not just repeating what you read on a blog somewhere. Someday, you might find that smoking gun you're after.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another story designed to try to convince people that the world is just fine and that polution, emissions, warming and rabid consumerism are all just fine to carry on as usual.

This is the wish of the business world who hope to keep us buying new big cars, filling our homes with stuff we don't need and spending, spending, spending to keep their year on year profits going up.

But folks there is very REAL evidence from countless valid sources that prove clearly that we are warming the climate and that our very human existence is in danger. The choice is, rabid consumerism and death, or a dramatic change in our global economic behavior and the possibility of preserving the planet.

Now why is this choice so hard for people to grasp? One word. Money. Changes in consumer behavior threaten profits. Period. What little "Green" activity we see out there is largely marketing. Like corporate philatropy giving $10,000 to a charity of the $10 Billion dollars they took in last year. A PR token and little else.

We know from our own personal experiences that the world is warming. Where I grew up always had feet of snow on the ground since anyone can remember. Now we go almost all winter with little or no snow in the valley.

Japan is becoming a more tropical climate with nearly no snow in Tokyo where there had always been snow in the past.

And then there are the polar caps, increased flooding, storm activity, expanding deserts etc...

What more do you flat earthers need to see or experience before you stop listening to conspiracy theorists and doubters and get with the program of tying to save our planet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The climate discussion has moved from a topical debate to a religious war. We now have "believers" and "deniers" who both give a damn a about data and just want their religion to prevail.

I hope sanity returns eventually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is everyone arguing over whether the data was manipulated or not? Who cares? Are you really that mindless that you need someone else to tell you what to think or how to observe the world around you? We are at a point where climate change is blantantly obvious! We don't need science to tell us that. Just open your own eyes and see the changes that have occurred in your lifetime! Yes, there are massive climatic changes happening and no, we cannot stop them. Did we cause them? Nope. Are we a contributing factor in them? Possibly.

Let's pretend for a second, that the temperatures aren't changing at all, that they world is going to stay climactically exactly as it is. Ok, now look at all the other crap we are doing. More and more often drinkable water gets tainted by e-coli or other bacteria. Sea levels are rising (having absolutely nothing to do with climate change of course...it is normal for islands to "sink" apparently), elevated PCBs in the breast milk of mothers in the arctic, mercury in our fish, a hole in the ozone, smog in most cities that has gotten so bad it now warrants its own advisory scale, soil stripped of its nutrients from single crop farming (thereby giving us fewer nutrients in our food)...and on and on and on...you can argue what you want about them but bottom line is, if you really sit down and look at what we are doing...we have a huge mess to clean up. Is any of it affecting the rate of our climate change? I think it sure does! Even if you want to argue that it doesn't, you still have to concede that we are hurting ourselves and are not exactly laying a smooth path for our future.

We have a mess to clean up and a climate change (yes, it is happening, which is a natural thing but very possibly at an artificially accelerated rate) to contend with. We need to learn to adapt to it NOW, not after things are worse than they already are.

I for one, would prefer a better quality life that would come from a major change in the way we are doing things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peachy871, I agree with you. The human race needs to find a way to exist sustainably on this planet. I live in Australia where we've had the longest sustained droughts ever, and recorded the hottest and driest seasons ever. I can't believe that people still think it's OK to cut down all the forests and pump the air full of carbon from fossil fuels; somehow nothing will change in the ecosystem we all depend on for our existence. I don't need to go to the arctic to see the icecap melting completely in summer, or to the antarctic to see ice shelves tens of thousands of years old sliding into the sea. All I need to do is look out the window at the dried remnants of lawn and remember that a mere 20 years ago it was always green, or look at the trees around the street that have died from lack of rain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Climategate" is another conspiracy theory like the 9/11 Truth movement or the Obama Birthers. These things are very compelling, believing that the establishment is wrong and that you're clued in to some secret truth. It's almost impossible to dissuade conspiracy theorists, because they ignore all evidence which doesn't agree with them, and cling to small errors (such as here), misinterpretations (also here), or factually incorrect points.

To many people on both sides, whether global warming is true or false is like a religious tenet. This forgets that for scientists, it's not. Theories behind global warming are works in progress, and if it all turns out to be correct or incorrect, so be it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the_harper, tkoind2 and peachy871, thank you for pointing out that real climate change can be seen openly, so this 'climategate' issue is going to fizz out like it should because nothing works as well as real facts staring you in the face. Essentially the climate is changing and as the IPCC stated, the likelihood of us being the cause is greater than 90%. Whether we are the cause (and I for one believe we are) or not, there are huge issues to be dealt with and major changes needed in the way we interact with the planet in terms of food, water and energy. The climate change deniers are a weird bunch - wilfully ignorant and desperately lunging at any scrap of information which may allow them to carry on polluting the way they always have. Sorry, but if you think you can get food from six continents, drive a V8, fly where you like, recycle the occasional bottle and think that's OK then you're dead wrong. It might be good to remember that the world's resources are finite. And I wouldn't call it a religion either; religion concerns supernatural fantasies - that doesn't sound like ordinary people who happen to care a little about pollution and their changing environment, does it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What annoys me about this article is that it presents an example of one organisation, the CRU, and pushes the conclusion that because corruption may exist within this one organisation, all organisations involved in climate research are corrupt. There's a huge amount of data from many sources - all peer reviewed - providing evidence for climate change. My own personal observations convince me of it anyway. People shouldn't be misled into thinking that the whole body of evidence is to be thrown out on the basis of a small proportion of the research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Using the word "Journalist" to describe Andrew Bolt what does is a gross abuse of the English language for which you should be truly ashamed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He's right. Scientists also fabricated film and satellite images of the poles melting and sea levels rising. Just imagine if we had used all the money on global warming research on the war! We would have wiped out every Iraqi a long time ago!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the position taken in the above article couldn't have come from a greater champion of big business interests than Robert Tracinski.

Tracinski's, ahem, "investigation" possesses about as much worth and validity as anything I could post on the subject of global Warming, even with my own pile of pilfered e-mails that are as cherry-picked and selective as he claims global warming data to be. Wow, talk about an argument that undermines itself.

I'll file his, umm, article appropriately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtimjones Right on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Theories behind global warming are works in progress, and if it all turns out to be correct or incorrect, so be it.

That's why its important for both sides to be heard and to have an honest and open debate between both sides. Unfortunately, skeptics (of global warming and other events) are too often automatically branded as nutters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So far I see I'm the only one providing data, and a whole lot of minions flapping gums in response.

Lie: Its never been this hot befor. Truth: at least 3 times in the last 1000 years, its been hotter than it is now. One such period reached 5c hotter than now (which by todays scientists is cataclismic), another of these times that it was hotter than now, it stayed hotter than it is now for over 100 years.

Lie: The artic ocean has never been this clear of Ice. Truth: As recent as during WW2 the artic ocean was MORE clear than it is now. Also dureing the holocean, Roman, and Medieval ages it was more free from ice than today.... Shouldnt we try to warm things up, scince we've obviosly caused cooling and frozen the artic?

Lie: Hummans cause a large percentage of CO2. Truth: Counting natural CO2 emmisions, the contributions of the human race is less than 1%

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi- you're right that skeptics need to be heard. The problem is that so many of the skeptics aren't scientists (such as the author of this article). Whether global warming is real or not shouldn't be a political debate. It's not like debating social issues.

Of course there are scientists who doubt global warming, and they should certainly continue their work as long as it's good science. Though as it stands they're a minority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Though as it stands they're a minority.

Yes, when editors that allow their articles to be published get sacked, these views tend to be in a minority.

If you are the chief editor of a journal on climate, and climate change is THE hot topic, then your journal is big and you become an important person. If global warming turns out to be just part of a normal cycle, then your journal becomes somewhat less outstanding and you are just some editor of some boring scientific journal (equal to Journal of Pond Scum).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Global warming is now exposed a myth made up by some money grabbing crackpot scientists.

I have studied this and have concluded there is no evidence of man made global warming. It is all down to mother nature and God.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is the climate system not very complex? I find it amusing that people say A causes Z (Z being climate change), when there are variables B thru Y that could possibly affect changes in the climate. How old are human beings? How old is this earth? Suddenly, global cooling (in the 70s), or global warming (up until recently), or climate change (the proper term now) is solely because of variable A (humans)?

Finally, to quote Michael Crichton, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris. There is no evidence that god exists and yet you attribute global warming to him. Yet there is extensive evidence that human generated global warming is not only real, but is a substantial danger to human existence, and yet you don't believe.

So is faith and denial one in the same for you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

daoster...no one here said it was solely the cause of humans. People stated that it is happening, some of us went so far as to speculate that we are contributing to it. SteelWOLF, although a skeptic about humankind's contribution, did rightfully point out that climate change happens...often. Many might agree with him. I do. However, there is a possibility that humans are contributing to it. I certainly think we are. Even if we are not, climate change is happening and always happens. Honestly, when on Earth will the real issue for both sides be about dealing with it (i.e. adapting in a more sustainable fashion to changes in climate) and dealing with a whole myriad of other problems that we DID cause????

Seriously, who cares about what pieces of data were pieced together; who hacked whose computer to uncover (gasp) this horrible, evil, unfathomable, I-am-scarred-for-life fraudulent information; if humans contribute 1% or 98% to global warming (did you know that 67.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot?); and on and on and on...

If it is nature, not nature, aliens, cows farting...again...not the point. The real point should be to pay attention to your little corner of the world, take care of it and change with it not against it. Plain. Simple. But apparently not mentally attainable for many nor financially lucrative for big businesses. More satisfying for most to whinge on and on about nothing that is going to accomplish anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelW0LF

So far I see I'm the only one providing data, and a whole lot of minions flapping gums in response.

Like the New Zealand 'scandal' earlier in this thread?

Turns out the 'climate skeptics' left out the correction that was needed because the weather monitoring station moved from sea level to 125 meters above sea level in 1928. As most people in Japan know, with it being a mountainous country, the higher up you go - the cooler it gets. Funny thing is the scientists involved had told the skeptics this many times before, but the skeptics decided to go for a dramatic, but false story.

Background: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise

Data correction info: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris at 04:49 PM JST - 30th November - "I have studied this and have concluded there is no evidence of man made global warming."

BWAAAH-HA-HA-hahahaa!!

DickMorris, ahem, "studied" this and his here to alay our fears by concluding that it's all bunk. Thanks, Dick, for all of your hard work.

And critics of global warming wonder why it's so hard for the rest of us to hop on their bandwagon when they've got grand marshals like this...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain; It is darn bunk. That is why these charaltans faked their data.

Man made global warming is a big lie, FACT!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf:

you believe what you want to believe. The data showed something else, more dire, and you insist on ignoring it because its so new and you have an opportunity to push your own agenda. You are acting no better than Al Gore, going off in one direction without details.

Congrats

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf:

The points your made were good, but your conclusions don't match the points. This inability to accept another point of view is only designed to make sure that the raw data is lost to emotional baggage.

Time to let it go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf:

Indeed you provided interesting information, which I deduced to mean to take understanding from the data, not opinion, which the French now do.

Yet the perchance of emotional debate, the very type of debate that caused the scientists to huddle inwards, is now continuing.

If you want openness and transparency, going off isn't the way to build support, but to lose it. If this is the kind of 'informed debate' that anyone can expect, its not worth it.

Thank you for the epiphany of the data showing me the new temperature plateau as noted by the French statistical analysis. Even with the new information, once again the problem is interpretation not available data. I'm sorry that you cannot understand this, and yet feel obligated instead to continue your own unchanging, unmoving point of view.

If the new data doesn't move you to change, frankly no text here ever will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's good that Al Gores cult of climate doom is taking a few hits. I don't rule out that humans contribute to global warming but I also recognize that the climate goes in cycles of heating and cooling. To take what is half finished science as the gospel and then cause extreme trauma to the economy doesn't make any sense. These leaked emails aren't the only reason for skepticism, people should be concerned about any scheme where a handful of people stand to make a ton of money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In college, one of my speech and persuasion classes discussed "God words." These are words or terms that are so polarizing that invoking them is dangerous, and DEBATING them is virtual suicide. For example, "racism." If a black person is turned down for a job and claims racism, it makes front page news. But if a white person makes the same claim, that person is villified as a liar, a racist, and a bigot. It doesn't mean that the black person WASN'T discriminated against, nor that the white person WAS discriminated against. It's just a way of demonstrating how the term racism has taken on a life and a cultish following of its own that undermines any genuine discussion or debate of the issue.

The same can be said for the term "global warming" (or climate change, or environmentalism, what have you). For decades we've been browbeaten with how humanity is destroying the planet. Pollution, deforestation, urban sprawl, overpopulation -- everything is our fault, and we're all going to die because of it. Honestly, I've always been skeptical of the hysteria. It's not that I don't believe in such a thing as global climate change -- to do so would be to deny history. Climate change has occured on this planet many times since its earliest days of molten rock and iron. Plants flourished in the beginning of the world, soaking up the rich carbon dioxide atmosphere and expelling oxygen as waste.

That was a climate change.

Next came the dinosaurs, which grew to enormous sizes in the global tropical heat. Herbivores grew to match the size of their plant material and meat eaters grew to match the size of their plant eating prey. Then an asteroid purportedly hit the earth, spreading a cloud of black ash that blotted out the sun and cooled the earth for centuries, killing all but the hardiest reptiles and small, neophyte mammals.

That was a climate change.

The Ice Age covered half the world in great sheets of ice. Mammals, with their self-regulating body heat, were able to grow and thrive in the environment. Wooly mammoths and mastadons, saber-tooth tigers, direwolves and short-faced bears -- they all emerged during this period. But then the glaciers receded and the earth's temperature climbed, and it was time for a new age of animals, plants, and people to take over.

This was a climate change.

My point is, climate change is a natural process. It DOES happen, and it IS effected by terrestrial activity. When the first plants began belching out oxygen I'm sure there were little plant environmentalists screaming about how all the plants were going to DIE because they were going to use up all the carbon dioxide. And you know what? They were right. To an extent. The animals that were able to evolve in the new, oxygen rich environment consumed those plants for fuel and sustenance. That's what climate change really is: planetary evolution. It's not nice, and it can be painful, and a lot of innocent (and not so innocent) bystanders can be hurt in the process, but it happens.

That said, this kind of scientific hooliganism is a disgrace. Worse than a disgrace. It's undermines every scientific discovery and achievement of the recent past and into the future, environmental or otherwise. The HEART of scientific inquiry is theory, debate, experimentation, documentation, and replicability. Without those elements there would be no science. That's what this scandal has done. It's taken the field of environmental science and transformed it into a pseudo-science, like paranormal investigation and alchemy. The comparison is apt: these "scientists" were taking leaden facts and turning them into burnished gold bull####, all to further an agenda.

Can they claim their actions were justified? Perhaps at first; blame it on blind idealism. Even with this new evidence of fraud I don't think you're going to find anyone advocating the dumping of toxic waste in baby seal breeding grounds, nor pumping chlorofluorocarbons out of industrial smokestacks into the atmosphere by the boatload. But the continued bamboozling of the international community is unforgivable. The silencing of critics is no different from the Soviet secret police stealing people out of their beds in the middle of the night to quell potential rebellion. Without open discussion and active debate, the open market of free ideas becomes no better than a filthy slave trade.

Beware "God words." ALWAYS question absolutes. ALWAYS be skeptical of statistics. ALWAYS draw your own conclusions rather than letting someone else draw them for you. The greatest travesty of the human experience is when a society of free-thinking individuals allows itself to be herded like cattle into a narrow canyon of proscribed thought, driven by the whips of guilt and ignorance and fenced in by the fear of reprisal should they try to escape. It's tyranny, plain and simple, and the thing about tyrants is they topple like dominoes when their subjects start to think for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll close my time here: I go to different websites trying to spread the word on this scandal.

Closing Remarks: All climate data should now be subject to review. Not just review from a closed group. Much of the data out there now is questionable at best. Through hadley (Mann) and Jones, all data supplied by NASA, NOAA, and GISS is suspect to be fraudulent. It may not be fraudulent, but being as Jones is the go to man for the data from NASA, NOAA, and GISS....it needs to be looked at.

Even if it is proven to be faked:

-We still need to work on polution. Just because MMGW might not be real, does not mean that we as a species have the right to spew trash and garbage everywhere.

-We as a species still need to look to alternative forms of energy. Not because of some climate changing disaster, but because clenliness and efficiency is human nature. People are always looking for better, cheaper, and cleaner ways of doing things. AGW being fake wont change the fact that we need cleaner energy. Clean energy is a noble goal, regardless of AGW or no AGW.

-The tearing down of the forests needs to be looked at. Not because of climate change. But because our natural resources need to be managed wisely. Natural resources should be used, but the using of those resources should be done in a manner that does not destroy the resource in the process.

Just because AGW may be fake, does not mean that protecting out envoronment and ecolodgy is fruitless. To the contrary, immagine how much could be accomplished in other environmental endeavors if all the money being thrown at AGW was directed at other environmental sciences that actually may accomlish somthing.

Final though befor I go, and this is my oppinion. Climate Change is real, the planet does change always and often. My oppinion is that its the man caused portion of climate change that is false. But just because its false does not give us a free ticket to pollute and tear everything appart.

You all have a great life and take care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SteelWolf

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Your final comment I can agree with wholeheartedly. I think the pollution issue is far more pressing as well. Energy and Peak Oil will also be prevalent in future.

With an audit on the carbon issue that would benefit everyone and take care of itself. This should be a lesson for anyone not to paint themselves into a corner like Al Gore, and be open to all the data, even if it goes against doctrine. The end result will be the same, reduce/eliminate pollution, understand and find the right "Goldilocks" carbon balance, and learn to live on one planet.

Cheers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Steelwolf I agree that regardless of global warming we have to be alarmed at pollution and resources. However, even if global warming is false I don't see how that's the same as saying that "man has no impact on climate change". We literally can cause rain, and in China they're doing that year round with small iodine rockets. When they cut down huge forests in China, it caused massive erosion and allowed wind to blow pollution further (the forest acted as a wind buffer). That is also climate change. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere, one example being the ozone layer - allowing a higher level of radiation to strike the surface of the planet. In any case, it's impossible to deny that man has an impact on climate and the composition of the earth. What's only at issue is if man is having a significant impact on the temperature of the earth. And that's just one slice of the pie as far as climate is concerned. Climate change != temperature change

I also don't see that the issue of climate change is as simple as either side makes it out to be. In fact, the "no man-made" climate change faction is even more dishonest and ignorant than the other faction they attack. Some of them are simply pathological liars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Azrael says:

Please do consider the fact that you may be mistaken.

Well of course I could be mistaken. Anyone can be mistaken on any given subject. That being said, for some reason global warm-mongers refuse to consider that they too could be mistaken. They insist that there is a consensus and go so far as to cherry-pick and manipulate temperature data and suppress evidence to the contrary. It is just amazing to me that given the clearly unprofessional and potentially fraudulant actions of leading IPCC climate scientists so many believers refuse to consider that they could be wrong. What makes you right and others that don't believe in man-made global warming wrong?

Just don't go postal somewhere to stop positive social and economical changes (having cleaner energy resource options is only intelligent) - that would be unhelpful.

Why would I go "postal" over the fact that activist scientists have been discredited by their own words (in e-mail and computer code)? I have no problem with pursuing cleaner energy sources, but that doesn't require heavy handed government requlation of carbon dioxide (ie plant food) in the name of saving the planet. What is unhelpful and not real intelligent is to go about tricking people into supporting a political agenda using faulty science.

Doesn't it bother global warming believers that leading IPCC climate scientists are trying to prevent different viewpoints from being published in scientific journals? Apparently not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k says:

Basically parsing data means fitting data. That's how graphs are made. If a graph is made of many data points the scales are not going to match.

The issue is not how the data is fitted to a graph. The problem is that the CRU scientists and Michael Mann are manipulating temperature data to show warming that is not actually occurring. They are doing this to re-enforce their warming models.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Turns out the 'climate skeptics' left out the correction

I take issue with referring to global warming deniers as "skeptics".

As unscientific ideologues, they are anything but.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mnemosyne23: Climate change has historically been a fairly long process. What you described is accepted as history, but what you failed to see is that the process of warming has been sped up by our behavior. Whether solely human or a combination of factors, the end result is unchanged. A warmer planet will have substantial issues for economics, human survival and the geo-political welfare of most nations. If we are in any way contributing to this outcome, it makes sense to take steps.

The other issue you need to consider is this. If I am a corporation, who are the biggest voices out there trying to tell you that warming is a lie. What is my motivation? If you believe warming you will stop shopping, stop buying big cars, stop consuming so much and start thinking about lessening your impact. All of this means diminished profits and less opportunity for growth. Bottom line, if I am a company I don't want you to believe because it will hurt me and my share holders.

So you want to believe sources that have every interest in convincing you to keep consuming and consuming?

Warming is happening people. We have to do something about it now. If we fail, the consequences are too great for humanity. If we are wrong, and I do not think we are, then the worst we have done is make our planet a little better and a little more protected. Why not take that step instead of taking the do nothing risky approach? Think about it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mnemosyne23,

Your post 02:18 AM JST was very nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mnemosyne23: Nice and largely incorrect in its conclusions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may have already been covered.

With all this debate going on between the sides, it's basically proving how science works.

You're supposed to recreate hypotheses over and over again to try and recreate the results. The results have been in dispute for years now.

Carl Sagan spoke on the danger of a possible global cooling just 30 years ago.

There are other scientists who claim that the Earth is in a cooling period too.

To me, all this is inconclusive. Al Gore isn't going to convince me with his Hollywood movie or all the Nobel Prizes in the world. Or any other political machine for that matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SiouxChef

I take issue with referring to global warming deniers as "skeptics".

That's why I used single quotes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

urufuls

The basics of climate change are not in dispute: greenhouse gasses intercept infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, causing the atmosphere to retain heat. That's pretty basic and solid physics. Among the scientists the discussion has moved on to 'how fast will the climate change' and 'what can be done about it'.

Carl Sagan spoke on the danger of a possible global cooling just 30 years ago.

You are mistaken, what Carl Sagan spoke about was the dangers of a nuclear winter. He also campaigned for climate change action.

There are other scientists who claim that the Earth is in a cooling period too.

And they are people who either cannot read a simple graph or willfully misread it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mnemosyne23,

a nice post - but just because climate change was natural in the past does not mean it is natural now.

Forest fires occurred naturally in the past, however nowadays we also have to consider the effect of arson too.

Talking of completely natural things - If astronomers detected an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth what do you think should be done?

The asteroid is natural.

They've hit the Earth in the past - but we're here now despite that. Natural

However, if the asteroid hits we may be driven to the brink of destruction. Natural.

I think we'd do something about it, and for the same reasons I think we should be doing more about climate change: it's in our own best interests.

The only problem is that people can get their heads around a big rock hitting us than our climate changing activities causing heavy and ongoing disruption to agriculture and infrastructure - the former also leading to war (over food) and the latter leading to a much worse quality of life for all of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if anyone want to see another side of argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/stolen-cru-emails-who-are_b_366474.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Huff n Puff post?

Realy?

You're serious arnt you?

I'm sorry, I didnt see your sign......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. It is unclear whether global warming is due to increased carbon dioxide concentration or if carbon dioxide concentration is the result of global warming. The oceans contain thousands of times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere and can release significant quantities of carbon dioxide if they are warmed or the pH altered. If some, as yet, undiscovered process is warming the ocean, it could initiate the release of carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere which, in turn, is warmed even more by radiational heating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's why I used single quotes.

Starviking

I did notice that and should have made it clear that, while I did take a snippet from your post, I wasn't addressing you in particular, but rather just the notion that the AGW crowd are skeptics.

That said, I personally think putting it this way would better make the point:

climate "skeptics"

Wild conspiracy theories, ignoring the scientific body of evidence, and clinging to an ideology in light of an opposing reality is about as far from skepticism as you can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Historically, warming has "preceded" a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Good post sfjp330.

News flash: Phil Jones at East Anglis's Climate Research Center (CRU) has stepped down from his position while the school investigates his involvement in the Climategate scandal. Also, Michael Mann at Penn State University is also being investigated by his university.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh. Look at the ad below us. Adapt. Let us help, STEP RIGHT UP.

Wolfpack: Right on!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So: we have no conclusive proof that global warming is really happening so let's not try to reduce emissions and help the environment.

What IF it is actually happening, but our scientific methods / understanding of climate mechanisms are still insufficient to fully understand it? Should we still do absolutely nothing and just continue to pollute and destroy our planet? We don't know for sure what is happening and what's causing it, but this is too damn important to just advocate a status quo.

Let's prove that there is intelligent life on planet Earth, people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starviking

I did not post that the basics of climate change were in dispute. I think I misled you in my post. Carl Sagan actually suggested that if we were to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we would be able to lessen the blow of a global cooling (a nuclear winter would cool the globe, would it not?). There was a general cooling of the world in the middle of the 20th century, however the general scientific opinion now is that global warming is happening. Remember, it's a general opinion.

I mentioned the results of this hypothesis (being that global warming is occurring)is in dispute. You can find scientists that claim it is occurring and scientists who dispute that. We can find that popular scientific opinion is that global warming is happening, but still a considerable rejection of that claim exists as well.

There exist government agencies that require the archiving of scientific data to prevent fraudulent data. Well, it looks like that's what happened. It doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, it just means that the motivation to gain scientific confirmation of a phenomenon is entirely misplaced.

I'm all for efficiency and clean energy and less smog and fresh air. But I can't believe in something when it is so disputed and those that are supposed to be the truth seekers are corrupting it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As an engineer/scientist that has done significant research and development related to alternative energy sources I come away from the article and subsequent comments with the following perception.

1) Both sides of the argument seem to be engaged in politicizing and name calling.

2) There is scientific data available that would assist the argument of each side.

3) I do not believe as Al Gore stated, "The debate is over". I believe this debate is still in progress and no true scientist would make such a rash statement.

4) I also believe that these e-mails and the fudged data do not prove that man made global warming does not exist. It does show, however, unethical behaviour by some of the scientists involved in the studies/presentation of data. Fudging data, deleting correspondence that does not support the end game and other such activities does not provide transparency and confidence in the methods used.

Of course we should take the obvious steps of encouraging alternative energy sources (one example is that the U.S. has extended significant tax breaks for the installation of solar / wind / other alternative energy sources) through the year 2016 - the tax breaks are tangible, extensive, and the new federal law does not pose a cap. This is common sense as renewable energy sources should be exploited wherever possible and a reduction in the consumption of non renewable sources will result in greater political stability, global security, and of course a better environment.

On the other hand I do not think we should pursue a global (or localized type of ) Cap and Trade type carbon tax, which will enrich Goldman Sachs and similar interests. The folks trying to dictate to us how we should live will continue to fly their private jets around the planet, ride in limos, live the high life while we are told to conserve and reduce.

International treaties that do not involve all nations will not result in environmental improvement....only result in polluting activities being transferred to those exempt countries. This has been proven again and again.

Continue the research. Open up all the data. Allow for an open and transparent debate and keep encouraging alternative energy sources and quit the name calling and labeling of people that disagree. Disagreement and debate is a part of the scientific process.

Find those guilty of tampering with or deleting data and exclude them from further activities related to this issue.

Alternative energy is getting cheaper by the year and more available. If you are in Japan go to some of the trade shows (such as the big PV show in Yokohama in June 2010) and see first hand what is going on related to alternative energy. I think you may walk away encouraged and confident that we are making great strides .... without the imposition of additional taxes and tarifs, which will most adversely affect those that can least afford them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330 @ 05:55 AM JST - 2nd December

There is a way of differentiating between carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels and that released by the warming seas: fossil fuel carbon has more Carbon 12 (an isotope) than normal atmospheric carbon dioxide.

SiouxChef @ 09:20 AM JST - 2nd December

Wild conspiracy theories, ignoring the scientific body of evidence, and clinging to an ideology in light of an opposing reality is about as far from skepticism as you can get.

In total agreement with you - however, I try not to be too confrontational in Climate Science discussions, as a lot of people don't have the scientific background needed to weed out all the manufactured doubt on climate change. Confrontation gets hackles up and then nothing changes.

That said, I have been known to go overboard sometimes...

Wolfpack @ 11:37 AM JST - 2nd December

Historically, warming has "preceded" a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

That's a non sequitor: historically forest fires were only started by lightning. Funnily enough man comes along and now we have plenty of forest fires started by man, not lightning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how much did this author get paid by the coal industry.

Global Warming is a fact that now about of mudslinging can hide. Its useless going over the facts to those that are faith-based nutters that think the earth will come to an end when JC comes back. You want to know who the real enemies of the US and the world are, its not the Arabs, its the rightwing religious types who want the world to end cause the bible tells them so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium; You won`t be so smug on judgement day!

Climate change is a myth perpeptuated by immoral greedy scientists with fake data. Over history the Earth has warmed and cooled many times due to mother nature and God, nothing to do with man.

The faked data but these crackpot Brits proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming is a fallacy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starviking says:

That's a non sequitor: historically forest fires were only started by lightning. Funnily enough man comes along and now we have plenty of forest fires started by man, not lightning.

You obviously missed the point. There are numerous alternatives to the man-made global warming theory - the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has historically 'preceded' warming is just one of many. Man is responsible for a miniscule amount of the carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

There is more legitimate evidence for solar activity as being preimarily responsible for global warming than man. The leading global warming scientists have 'politicized' climate research because of their shared ideology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I once heard scientists stating that the biggest contribution to global warming is bovine flatulence and meat processing.

Thoughts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With this article, it sounds like there is as much manufactured truth as there is manufactured doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack @ 11:22 AM JST - 4th December

You obviously missed the point. There are numerous alternatives to the man-made global warming theory - the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has historically 'preceded' warming is just one of many.

Wolfpack - first, I think you want to say that 'increased carbon in the atmosphere has historically followed warming'. Secondly, even with that correction it's a fact - not a theory.

Now - care to explain why in the past CO2 increases have followed warming?

Man is responsible for a miniscule amount of the carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

That's actually true - but what our emissions are doing is upsetting the balance of carbon dioxide production and absorption in the global ecosystem. We're upsetting the balance, and we have to do something about it.

There is more legitimate evidence for solar activity as being preimarily responsible for global warming than man.

Care to give us the titles of some of the scientific papers that support that statement? Solar researchers have found that for the past 30 years the sun's output has been steady whilst out temperatures have been rising. Also, if the effect was largely solar then the whole atmosphere would warm - instead we see the upper atmosphere cooling, as predicted by the greenhouse effect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris at 12:54 AM JST - 4th December

The faked data but these crackpot Brits proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming is a fallacy.

Dick, 'fallacy' - that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

urufuls at 02:59 PM JST - 4th December

I once heard scientists stating that the biggest contribution to global warming is bovine flatulence and meat processing.

Methane produces 28% of the warming that CO2 produces.

Ref: http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

urufuls at 03:06 PM JST - 4th December

With this article, it sounds like there is as much manufactured truth as there is manufactured doubt.

Of course, there must be oodles of 'manufactured truth'. Let's look at the facts:

13 Years of emails.

A few 'odd ones' found. One set complains about a bad paper published in a journal, and that something should be done. But nothing is done. A climate 'skeptic' is badmouthed, quelle suprise! Someone uses the word 'trick' in the meaning 'a neat way to do something - but it's to 'hide the decline'. Shocking!... well save for the fact that the trick is to show the temperature records from thermometers! There's also some code that changes data points on a graph!! But it's commented out, like most mess-arounds in coding are.

Context isn't available, as the hackers have removed most of the mails required for that (Odd eh?).

So, 13 years of emails, and to quote Gavin Schmitt:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

urufuls ' 03:32 PM JST - 3rd December

I did not post that the basics of climate change were in dispute. I think I misled you in my post. Carl Sagan actually suggested that if we were to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we would be able to lessen the blow of a global cooling (a nuclear winter would cool the globe, would it not?). There was a general cooling of the world in the middle of the 20th century, however the general scientific opinion now is that global warming is happening. Remember, it's a general opinion.

Well, taking of general opinions - I've just watched the episode of Cosmos where it is claimed that Carl Sagan said that. The episode is number 4, Heaven and Hell - if you're interested. What he says is:

"The bright sandy surface and dusty atmosphere of Mars reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the planet - freezing out all its water, locking it in a perpetual ice age. Human activities brighten our landscape and our atmosphere. Might this ultimately make an ice age here? At the same time we are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide - increasing the greenhouse effect. The earth need not resemble Venus too closely to become barren and lifeless. It might not take much to destabilize the earth's climate, to make this heaven - our only home in the cosmos - into a kind of hell."

Unsurprisingly the 'general opinion' on what Carl Sagan believed is wrong.

As for 'general scientific opinion' - it's based on almost 160 years of scientific experiment and endeavour - nothing 'general' about it at all.

I mentioned the results of this hypothesis (being that global warming is occurring)is in dispute. You can find scientists that claim it is occurring and scientists who dispute that. We can find that popular scientific opinion is that global warming is happening, but still a considerable rejection of that claim exists as well.

And we can find people who think that the Earth continent's do not move due to continental drift - but because the Earth is swelling up like a balloon - but that is not dispute. Seeing that the rejection comes from weathermen, mining engineers, economists and bloggers I think I can say that there is not a considerable rejection of the scientific status of climate change.

There exist government agencies that require the archiving of scientific data to prevent fraudulent data. Well, it looks like that's what happened. It doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, it just means that the motivation to gain scientific confirmation of a phenomenon is entirely misplaced.

And the scientific data is archived. The raw data is available from the meteorological agencies which provided it.

I'm all for efficiency and clean energy and less smog and fresh air. But I can't believe in something when it is so disputed and those that are supposed to be the truth seekers are corrupting it.

And yet look at your statement about Carl Sagan's beliefs - and then look at what he actually said.

I challenge you. Watch episode 4 of Cosmos - you will not find the sentiments you've been told he expresses in it. It can be found on the net.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Manufactured doubt? How about a collective attempt to falsify data to justify a liberal "religion." This will go down as the greatest fraud ever attempted in our lifetime, and those involved (Gore, Obama, "scientists") should be held accountable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see, because some math is wrong, now ALL math is wrong? What?

Mistakes were made, good. It will engage us on a much needed audit. After which GW will be renamed Climate Change, to thus take into account cooling as well as warm, dry and wet.

The data didn't go away. The measurements are still there. The observations are still around you. Back to the data please. Ironically when that happens many of armchair critics realize the science, post-audit, then more not less will (finally?) be reconciled to stop pandering and accept change, whatever that might be.

Otherwise you're no better than the scientists who denied the data. Data will win, in the end, scientific integrity as it should. Not your opinion. Deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starviking:

first, I think you want to say that 'increased carbon in the atmosphere has historically followed warming'.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. Thanks for making that clear.

Now - care to explain why in the past CO2 increases have followed warming?

There are studies by scientists that suggest that warming precedes increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2. I did a quick search and found this article that provides evidence that warming ocean temperatures results in release of greater amounts of CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/spencer-on-an-alternate-view-of-co2-increases/

Can you deny that increases in temperature do not in fact cause an increase in CO2 "emissions" from oceans?

My main point on this Climategate article is that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are largely driven by natural factors and that human emissions are miniscule and therefore disprove the idea that man is the driving factor behind an increase in global temperatures. The fact that leading IPCC scientists are fudging the numbers and suppressing dissent from their man-made global warming theory is unscientific, unprofessional, and a global fraud.

That's actually true - but what our emissions are doing is upsetting the balance of carbon dioxide production and absorption in the global ecosystem. We're upsetting the balance, and we have to do something about it.

No we don't. Periodic volcano's also upset "the balance" as you put it by emitting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a natural occurrence and does not threaten the planet - and neither does man-made CO2.

Solar researchers have found that for the past 30 years the sun's output has been steady whilst out temperatures have been rising.

I'm not sure that is true as the sun goes through regular short and long-term cycles. We have just recently entered a period of decreased solar activity (and global temperatures have declined recently).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I can say is that I know a lot of weather forecasters and climatologists and not one of them believes we are not doing serious damage to the planet. I've never met a meteorologist who thinks the planet is just fine.

I've also met a lot of people who think there is no reason to worry about our environment. None of them has ever studied the weather and I'm usually the only weather-type person they've ever met.

That says something for me.

Yet, these same people, are certain that the person with the weather training is wrong and they, who received their information from people who ALSO aren't weather experts, are correct.

Those people aren't the planet's best, nor brightest.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A well written article, about Climategate. Not sure how I missed this. Rather late to jump in and comment, but what the hell. I've long been a skeptic of the climate change arguments. The idea that its caused by man has long seemed based more on conjecture then any real science. Throw in the term consensus, and I get even more leery. The fact that if you dared to 'deny' man caused climate change, or question if it was real, you were screamed down, and labeled a 'skeptic' with your head in the sand, was worrying to me. What kind of science is this I wondered. This is not how scientists act. They question the perceived notions, they don't work in lockstep with each other. Until this story broke though, I didn't have anything to really base my opinion on. Now however, everything becomes clear. These individuals were working in collusion together to force this viewpoint on us. To perpetuate a fraud, never before seen in history. I want to believe that some intelligent people were able to see through the lies. And now that this is exposed will change their views. I think the more people hear about this, and see what has occurred, they will. However even still I suspect that many like Starviking, are so wedded to the idea of man caused global warming, that they can't see any other possibilities. I don't know if this is because they honestly believe this, or if like Taka, its an article of faith in their religious and political dogma.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir,

Please don't project your shortcomings on to me in the future. My beliefs are not based on religion or politics, my beliefs are based on the education I received from the U.S. Navy and University of Maryland. I'm sorry but every bit of science I've been taught points to man having a profound impact on the earth.

Now before you jump on the old "but the earth is cooling" canard, let me add, it may be and for now, our actions are counter-acting that. But...what's your plan for when the cooling cycle ends? "D'oh!" That's your plan, and I'm being generous here.

And in conclusion...you say you are skeptical; what scientific basis is your skepticism based? Where did you get your education in meteorology? I got mine from the U.S. Navy, meaning...I HAVE AN EDUCATION IN METEOROLOGY.

So...one of us is basing their argument on science and education and one of us is basing their beliefs on skepticism of science based on political dogma (hint: he's the one wearing your underwear).

Peace,

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So...one of us is basing their argument on science and education and one of us is basing their beliefs on skepticism of science based on political dogma (hint: he's the one wearing your underwear)."

Props, taka313. Major props.

Ignore the disbelievers! You are making Al Gore proud. Who cares how Jon Stewart has ridiculed us true believers. We know whose pockets HE is in. You made some salient points. But, actually,inexplicably, your beach ball avatar is what sold me on your defense of the brave East Anglia fudge boys.

The only question is - - how can we blame rush or palin for this PR disaster ????????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka, the article of faith I'm referring to is your party line following of whatever Liberalism believes at the moment. Your unwavering of support for Obama, regardless of what he does or says. Your insistence on man caused climate change, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, and now proof that those who were pushing this viewpoint, were in fact committing fraud. To put it simply, you are unwilling to change your viewpoint, at all. The left is right, regardless of whether its wrong. This is what I'm referring to.

Now getting into your statement that you supposedly have an education in Meteorology. Let me ask you, when you first heard the idea that global warming was responsible for increased hurricane activity, what was your reaction? If you thought, yeah, thats right, then you need to go back to school. If you thought, umm, not the way things work, then maybe, just maybe you know what you're talking about. Yet that has become accepted dogma for the climate change crowd as well. One of many examples of reality, not really mattering to those pushing this agenda.

I'm sorry but every bit of science I've been taught points to man having a profound impact on the earth.

I had to single this statement out for special consideration. It is of course correct on the face of it. Mankind does have an impact on the earth. Acid rain and the Heat Island effect are 2 examples where we have impacted the system. However we cannot control the weather. We cannot turn the summer to winter, or the winter to summer, that is simply outside our control.

Most people like myself who are skeptical of the pseudo science involved here, don't completely reject that mankind can or is having an effect. We merely state its way too soon to come to the conclusion, that its mankind that is causing the climate to change. The reality is, that the climate is changing. Constantly. And mankind, which puts out less then 4% of the total amount of CO2 released each year, is not having as big an impact as the hysterics like yourself want us to believe. And the runway greenhouse scenario, spun by the chicken littles such as yourself, where the Earth becomes uninhabitable, is to put it mildly, a fantasy.

Despite what you may want to believe, we are not in control of the environment. Hell, even today we can barely understand it. Taka, you claim to be trained in Meteorology. How often are your predictions right when it comes to the weather. How often are they wrong? And you want us to bankrupt ourselves on the chance you're right? Sorry, but if we're going to spend trillions of dollars on this, the science must be locked down. Absolutely locked down, not be due to a supposed consensus, based on a fraud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just as a passing observer, I must say that Taka's statements have made you jump high. Don't attack the (professionally prepared) messenger; rather, direct yourselves at facts.

This of course, is only a suggestion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile the Police concentrate their resources on trying to find the source of the leak. As if that is the only important thing here...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir,

Let me start off by apologizing. Obviously my last post spun you up to the point of irrational thought. My bad.

May I address your decent into silliness. I state that I don't know a single person in the weather business who doesn't think there's a problem. I know a lot of them because it's what I did for the Navy for 14 years. SO...I have 14 years experience and the best training the U.S. govt. has to offer.

Yet you state my beliefs are based on politics. Between you and I, who is the first person to bring a politician's name into the "debate?" That would be you, missy.

Then you go on about pseudo science without even a hint of what I base my beliefs. Yet I'm supposedly the one with an agenda. Albedo. There. That's my agenda. It's also science. Meanwhile you shriek about Pres. Obama and Al Gore and "psuedo science" while offering none in return, which is understandable as you have no training, nor experience in meteorology.

Really, you are self-mocking. I don't even need to mock you. I'm not as good at it as you.

SO there. You win (I know that's important to you). You are far better at mocking you than I.

Congrats.

Peace,

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought previous discussions from other threads into this conversation. When I referred to you as I did, I was basing my opinion on many other posts, over different areas. You have long exhibited a one track mind on so many issues, that its hard to not see your intransigence on this issue as further evidence of your being a party line follower, regardless of right or wrong. Don't feel bad, there are many others like yourself out there, on both sides. I'm one of the few that sometimes sides with conservatives, and sometimes with Liberals, depending on the topic. Thats because I look at the issue, and inform myself before making a decision. And then if later, I find new evidence I'll reconsider. As an example, when Obama was first elected, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I said many times, he has only been in office x days, then x months. I have long since made up my mind on the man. Even still, I can look at see if he has made a good call on an issue, even while I disagree with him on everything else.

Regarding the Pseudo science. I don't even see anything in your post that actually quantifies what your arguement is based on. We all know about the recent hacked emails, that prove scientists were deliberately manipulating data to achieve the desired results. They were acting to prevent scientific dissent, and the publishing of papers that actively challenged their viewpoints. Now, I ask you, is this science? Does science attempt to stifle dissenting voices, or when there is evidence suggesting that a theory is incorrect, do the scientists re-evaluate, and retest their theories in order to come up with new, and correct theories? I think we both know the answer to that. That is why I refer to the climate change people and their work, as pseudo science.

Now, why do you feel its legitimate? Why despite all the evidence to the contrary do you feel that Global Warming is real, and unequivocally caused by man? What do you base your scientific argument on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack at 09:58 PM JST - 5th December

I wrote:"Now - care to explain why in the past CO2 increases have followed warming?"

You responded: There are studies by scientists that suggest that warming precedes increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2. I did a quick search and found this article that provides evidence that warming ocean temperatures results in release of greater amounts of CO2.

Wolfpack - you misinterpreted my question - the answer is that changes in the orientation of the Earth cause it to cool (Ice age start) and the warm. As the Earth warms the seas release CO2, as it's solubility declines with increasing temperature. The released CO2 causes more heat to be retained by the Earth, and then we move out of the Ice Age.

Can you deny that increases in temperature do not in fact cause an increase in CO2 "emissions" from oceans?

Of course not - it's basic chemistry, the solubility of a gas decreases as temperature increases. Henry's Law.

My main point on this Climategate article is that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are largely driven by natural factors and that human emissions are miniscule and therefore disprove the idea that man is the driving factor behind an increase in global temperatures. The fact that leading IPCC scientists are fudging the numbers and suppressing dissent from their man-made global warming theory is unscientific, unprofessional, and a global fraud.

First, we're disturbing the equilibrium - as I mentioned earlier. As for your claims - the CRU scientists did none of what you said - but even if they did, AGW does not depend on just the tree work at the CRU. There are multiple sources of evidence backing up AGW - including ice core readings, melting ice in the Arctic and Antartica, the thermometer records, and a whole host of other results from a wide field of sciences.

I wrote: "That's actually true - but what our emissions are doing is upsetting the balance of carbon dioxide production and absorption in the global ecosystem. We're upsetting the balance, and we have to do something about it."

You replied: "No we don't. Periodic volcano's also upset "the balance" as you put it by emitting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a natural occurrence and does not threaten the planet - and neither does man-made CO2."

That is rubbish. Whoever told you that lied to you. Look at the United States Geological Survey's page on volcanoes:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

I quote: "Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large (Volcanoes), the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

I wrote: "Solar researchers have found that for the past 30 years the sun's output has been steady whilst out temperatures have been rising."

You wrote: "I'm not sure that is true as the sun goes through regular short and long-term cycles. We have just recently entered a period of decreased solar activity (and global temperatures have declined recently)."

First, here's a link to NASA's measurement of Total Solar Irradiance since 1975: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/irradiance.jpg

Second, global temperatures have not declined, at least not according to NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Check those links - you are being lied to, but not by whom you think.

Also, for a reasonably good summation of 'Climategate', see:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/04/global-warming-emails-followup/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starviking - I read the article. Or rather the attempt to dismiss and discredit those who are skeptical of AGW. Sorry, its a good attempt, but it doesn't get the job done. Its attempt to justify the scientists and their oh so pure motivations is bunk.

The fact of the matter is, that its clear these 'scientists' deliberately fudged data. Even if that was all they had done, it would have been enough to taint all their works, and those associated with them. However that wasn't all they did. They also deliberately undercut the scientific process in attempting to have any studies that would cast their own efforts in a bad light, rejected. They tampered with the peer review process to ensure their works got published, while anything else did not. I don't see how anyone can refer to people like this as scientists.

One of the commentators on the site questioned why the standard for AGW is so high, not understanding apparently, that if the world is going to bankrupt itself, destroying its economy, then the science has to be rock solid. It is not. And stuff like Climategate, with evidence of 'scientists' deliberately manipulating data, deleting raw data, and doing everything they can to avoid compliance with FOIA requests show them in a very very bad light.

Finally, I'd like to comment on what you stated earlier. About how mankind is disturbing the equilibrium. I won't ask for the proof of that statement, as its obvious from geological history among other things, that such proof doesn't exist. I'll just ask this. Less then 4% of CO2 emitted by the earth, is due to mankind. I believe the number I saw was 3.6%, but we'll round up and say 4. What you and other AGW proponents are saying, is that 4% is disturbing the equilibrium, and that we must reduce it to say, 3%, or else what? Irreparable devastation, run away global warming, that makes the planet unlivable? Whats the scare tactic you're pushing here? The runaway greenhouse scenario has no basis in reality. The geological record proves that levels of CO2 have been higher in the past, and yet here we are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why do the republcans spend all their time on the trivial when the reality of global warming is so obvious.

The coal industry is running a PR campaign against science to save their profits and shield them from the massive distruction of their industry. And the uniformed just repeat the false message over and over again. Like they proved to themselves there were WMD in Iraq. Its so sad to see minds wasted so badly . . .but many did not have much of a headstart anyway.

And when they use faux science to disprove fact its amusing, like using the bible to prove that the earth began 5,000 years ago. Really its a joke that no one other than the brainwashed takes seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The coal industry is running a PR campaign against science to save their profits and shield them from the massive distruction of their industry. And the uniformed just repeat the false message over and over again. Like they proved to themselves there were WMD in Iraq. Its so sad to see minds wasted so badly . . .but many did not have much of a headstart anyway.

Why do socialists spend so much time, money, and effort to convince us that the ones providing our jobs, the ones they pay us money that puts food on our table, are evil. EVIL!!!! Certainly not the kindly government beaurcrat that merely wants to decide what we can eat, what we can drive, what we can wear, or what we can think. No, nothing wrong with that. But the evil <insert company type here> industry. No, they must be destroyed!

And when they use faux science to disprove fact its amusing, like using the bible to prove that the earth began 5,000 years ago.

Likewise its amusing to hear the term faux science coming from a proponent of faux science. While I don't agree with the bible on a lot of things, I will say, that the Bible at least has more basis in fact apparently then some of these AGW proponents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir,

Why are you still going at it? I told you. you win. Now you're just running up the score.

Peace,

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are you still going at it? I told you. you win. Now you're just running up the score.

lol. Thanks Taka. But its not about winning or losing, its about playing the game. Seriously though, I just enjoy responding. You post something I disagree with, I have to jump in and comment, Zurc does, same thing. And on the extremely rare occasions where we both agree, I usually like to comment on those as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir at 03:16 AM JST - 8th December

I'll just ask this. Less then 4% of CO2 emitted by the earth, is due to mankind. I believe the number I saw was 3.6%, but we'll round up and say 4. What you and other AGW proponents are saying, is that 4% is disturbing the equilibrium, and that we must reduce it to say, 3%, or else what? Irreparable devastation, run away global warming, that makes the planet unlivable? Whats the scare tactic you're pushing here? The runaway greenhouse scenario has no basis in reality. The geological record proves that levels of CO2 have been higher in the past, and yet here we are.

Not runaway global warming, that happened on Venus - but the conditions that made it possible there (too much solar irradiance, no plate tectonics) are not in play here.

What will happen, and actually is happening, is that the climate is changing. Farm animals and crops do not get the things they need - or get too much: people starve. The same for cities, and so infrastructure needs cash. People get hungrier, poorer, lose hope. Probably a good climate for war.

As for 'CO2 levels have been higher in the past', the last time they were this high was 800,000 years ago. We weren't here, though there were approximately 1 million Homo Erectus doing that Hunter-Gatherer thing. Unlike us 6 billion souls, with our advanced civilization thing going on - they could move to better hunting grounds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Gore – Sun God Shaman?

When you read the science, you’ll find it to be well known that the Earth experiences 30-35 year temperature cycles. Thus any ‘climatologist’ who supposedly didn’t know this would be considered a fool amongst their colleagues. In fact, if this is your job, you can’t NOT know about Earth’s 30-35 year temperature cycles! Thus many scientists have been waiting for this latest warming ‘wave’ within the greater ‘tide’ to break, which is very likely what we are seeing right now with all of this record winter weather around the world. It snowed last year in Baghdad, for crying out loud – first time in 100 years!! And now England is snowed in, and the fraudsters have not-so-subtly changed their rhetoric from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change Crisis’. But this is only a re-branding of their fraud. Al Gore and crew attempted to use an upward fluctuation in this cycle to spread terror for power and profit, just as Inca and Mayan Priests once used their knowledge of eclipses to intimidate their populations, and pretend a direct connection to God. The motives of this are plain : Al Gore has a Carbon Credit Exchange waiting in the wings, developed with David Blood and, early in its development, Ken Lay of Enron. These two crooks have already played key roles in collapsing our economies, in their quest for profits under the new 'Scarcity Capitalism' Lay was so fond of, and we are about to hand over our economies to their sinister, vile, greedy machinations. If you look back at the only really solid data we have, which of course only covers the last 100 years or so – you will see the two previous cycles were a little longer than this one. If you go long range, you see that overall, we ARE in a warming cycle. It’s been warmer centuries ago, it’s hardly a bad thing, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway, so we prepare, is all. Big deal. But this game plays out like this – it’s not ’settled science’, but it is still fairly well known that the latest upward swing would lead to a dip – and we would have a carbon tax imposed just in time for a 35 year downswing in temperatures, when our energy needs would skyrocket. The payout would go beyond bags of money. It would be Global Fascism at it’s purest and finest. Thus they started to go into the schools in the 90’s, to indoctrinate a generation of children in their fraudulent cult – it’s easy to see that it’s been nothing less than timed, if you just do a little 'hindcasting of your own. If this natural upward fluctuation in temperature cycles were to have lasted an extra year or two – assuming we are looking at the onset of the dip we should be and would be expecting if we had honest leaders who weren’t trying to enslave us with phony science – there would be an army of self-hating eco-police coming out to do battle against evil polluting humanity over the next decade and all the laws would have been in place. It is nothing less than FOOLISH to abandon one source of energy without first developing another. To attempt to force the issue with a blatant scientific fraud destroys any alleged value in such an effort - in case you forgot, Stalin taught us the true meaning of "The End Justifies The Means". What Al Gore and the rest of the Climate Clown Cabal did – and are still trying to do! – is TREASON. Anybody remember what that is? Well, I’ll give you a hint – before there can be treason, you need to still have a country first.

http://beggarz.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/al-gore-sun-god-shaman/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yikes!

lol You can read that last post here :

http://beggarz.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/al-gore-sun-god-shaman/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites