Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Sir Loin · 11-23-09, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reefedjib

Yeah, well I don't think he has blinders on, nor a tin foil hat. Simply put, he is a partisan and he has something to sell you. The only thing he is interested in when you present an argument or an opinion that doesn't neatly fit his preferred world view is to attack it and attempt to discredit it or you as the messenger. It's what Democrats and Republicans do generally and contributes to the noise level here at DP. That's why I am a Whig.

Good for you and you'll not find me in disagreement with you about what goes on in general here at DP and on other forums. Only you should add IMO, it is what rabid partisans who deal only in ideology do.

reefedjib · 11-23-09, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Good for you and you'll not find me in disagreement with you about what goes on in general here at DP and on other forums. Only you should add IMO, it is what rabid partisans who deal only in ideology do.

Yeah, sorry, I was kinda general when I said Democrats and Republicans. You are right to clarify that it is rabid partisans.

Djoop · 11-23-09, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reefedjib

I believe NASA's data, I just don't subscribe to their conclusions, if their conclusions are that a) global warming is occurring and b) it is caused by human activity, AGW. I am more likely to believe claims about A than B, but my point was that we don't have an absolute picture that it is happening. We need to do more science.

You have the right to hold that opinion as I may find it arrogant. Why would you be more qualified then NASA? Can't you see our obligation to exclude B?

reefedjib · 11-23-09, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djoop

You have the right to hold that opinion as I may find it arrogant. Why would you be more qualified then NASA? Can't you see our obligation to exclude B?

According to reports of the content of these emails from the CRU, they falsified data that result in corruptions to one of the world's temperature datasets and acted closely in league with their American counterparts who compile GISS/NCDC data. The real data show we have been cooling for the last 9 years.

Pajamas Media Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

If NASA's data is wrong, their conclusions are wrong. If B is still included but found to be such a minor contributing factor, then nothing should be done.

reefedjib · 11-23-09, 05:43 PM

Quote:

[...]

If we do accept them as authentic, though, they truly are incendiary. They appear to reveal not one, not two, but three real scandals, of increasing importance.

The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.

See for example emails 1047388489, 1256765544, 1255352257, 1051190249, 1210367056, 1249503274, 1054756929, 1106322460, and 1132094873. Also see email 1139521913, in which the author discusses how the comments at RealClimate.org are moderated to prevent skeptical or critical comments from being published. RealClimate advertises itself as a scientific blog that attempts to present the “real case” for AGW.

The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

See for example emails 0938018124, 0843161829, 0939154709 (and the graphic here), and 0942777075 (and the discussion here).

The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

See for example emails 1106338806, 1228330629, 1212063122, 1210367056, and 1107454306 (again!).

Email 1107454306 is particularly interesting. In it, Dr Jones writes:

Quote:

The two MMs [McKittrick and McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

What makes this interesting is that the CRU, in later years, announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” their raw data when they responded to an FOIA request from … McIntyre.

Now, I’ve purposefully not included much of the text from these emails, both for reasons of space and because I want people to read them for themselves. But, at least on this first look, it appears that the three scandals are:

First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. (For another look at this, by a respected climate scientist who was one of the targets, see these posts on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog.) This is at best massively unethical.
Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?

Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.

Pajamas Media Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?

Middleground · 11-23-09, 06:03 PM

Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please.

Sir Loin · 11-23-09, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middleground

Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please.

And another AGW DP regular pops up to ignore the story and try to wish it all away by calling it a few "private emails." With that kind of intellectual honesty on display, who do you expect to persuade here Middelground, other than the usual DP AGW echo chamber?

Really, what pay off does a gal like you get from acting so dishonestly and frankly foolishly?

Dav · 11-23-09, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middleground

Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please.

If they believe it "without any doubt", then they are not true scientists to begin with. If they were, they wouldn't believe something "without a doubt" if it was impossible to prove and had not been proven.

Middleground · 11-23-09, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dav

If they believe it "without any doubt", then they are not true scientists to begin with. If they were, they wouldn't believe something "without a doubt" if it was impossible to prove and had not been proven.

Hmmmmmm.... that was tough to figure out your gist.

Look, there are signs everywhere that the world is warming. That is without doubt. What is still fairly unclear is how much of it is attributed to CO2. That is what we should be discussing. Not personal and private emails between individuals who probably didn't even make it through the spell checker.

Gill · 11-23-09, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middleground

Hmmmmmm.... that was tough to figure out your gist.

Look, there are signs everywhere that the world is warming. That is without doubt. What is still fairly unclear is how much of it is attributed to CO2. That is what we should be discussing. Not personal and private emails between individuals who probably didn't even make it through the spell checker.

What is the relevance if they are personal or private??

What is the relavance if they went through the spell checker.

11-23-09, 06:03 PM	#106
Middleground Godmotherbeaver of the MM Dungeon Master Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: Today 06:03 PM Location: Canada's Capital Posts: 7,143 Thanks: 3,986 Thanked 2,069 Times in 1,271 Posts Lean: Slightly Liberal Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? Awesome. The records show the world is warming. Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence. Please.
	__________________ Guess what I don't care and don't believe dogs gas causes global warming. After all it is 40 degrees here in Florida today. --ptif219

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sir Loin For This Useful Post:
DeeJayH, Gill, MrVicchio

The Following User Says Thank You to Middleground For This Useful Post:
Joe1991