Jump to content

Leaked Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate


Jason

Recommended Posts

[b] [size=6]Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate[/size][/b]


[size=6][size=3]Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/[/size][/size]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: [b](1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; [color=#ff0000](2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry[/color] and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.[/b][/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.[/size]
[size=3]“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email. [/size][/size][/font][/color]

[b] [size=3]“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.[/size][/b]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3][b]“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.[/b] This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3][b]“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” [/b]Thorne adds.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3]More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.[/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia,][size=5]
[size=3][i]James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at[/i][i][url="http://www.heartland.org/"]The Heartland Institute[/url][/i][i]and managing editor of[/i][i][url="http://heartland.org/issue-archive/environment-and-climate-news"]Environment & Climate News[/url][/i][i].[/i][/size][/size][/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think it's stupid to deny that the human population and all it's resultant pollution hasn't had an effect on our climate, because it has. That said, quantifying that is really tricky and I'm not inclined to believe any of them when it's obvious their studies were paid for by either side of the argument and those sides have a political axe to grind, The Earth DOES in fact go through climactic cycles and we are just as poised to have the next Ice Age as we are to being doomed to an all-over tropical climate that will kill us all with raised sea levels.

 

That's the point....we simply do not know what all the combined causes are for what we are experiencing. Maybe mankind has never experienced this before. It's not like we've been around this changing planet for 50,000 years since we've been keeping records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's stupid to deny that the human population and all it's resultant pollution hasn't had an effect on our climate, because it has. That said, quantifying that is really tricky and I'm not inclined to believe any of them when it's obvious their studies were paid for by either side of the argument and those sides have a political axe to grind, The Earth DOES in fact go through climactic cycles and we are just as poised to have the next Ice Age as we are to being doomed to an all-over tropical climate that will kill us all with raised sea levels.

 

That's the point....we simply do not know what all the combined causes are for what we are experiencing. Maybe mankind has never experienced this before. It's not like we've been around this changing planet for 50,000 years since we've been keeping records.

 

One side wants to ignore it because it effects their profits. One side doesn't want the world to be destroyed. You can simplify it by saying political axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One side wants to ignore it because it effects their profits. One side doesn't want the world to be destroyed. You can simplify it by saying political axe to grind.

 

 

Everyone wants clean air and clean water, and common sense measures are, well, common sense. But I might argue that the people leading the side that "doesn't want the world to be destroyed" is also a side that not only wants to profit, but also wants to control, and will shamelessly fix their data to propagandize their agenda. The "green movement" is largely a tool. A means to an end.

 

I don't think humans have much effect on climate change, if any, but we can definitely trash the water we drink and the air that we breathe. So yeah, let's do better, but stop legislating based on "climate change".

 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Everyone wants clean air and clean water, and common sense measures are, well, common sense. But I might argue that the people leading the side that "doesn't want the world to be destroyed" is also a side that not only wants to profit, but also wants to control, and will shamelessly fix their data to propagandize their agenda. The "green movement" is largely a tool. A means to an end.

 

I don't think humans have much effect on climate change, if any, but we can definitely trash the water we drink and the air that we breathe. So yeah, let's do better, but stop legislating based on "climate change".

 

JMHO

90% of the scientific world disagrees with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck "climate change", BP took a shit in the entire Gulf of Mexico and we're going to debate long-term fluctuations in temperature? Who really gives a shit when we're clearly, incontrovertibly making a huge mess of everything RIGHT NOW, and constantly? Is the contention here that we're somehow creating LESS pollution? Arguing about this theory is nothing more than a delaying tactic. There's no controversy - there's no denying it, not at this point. We can keep fucking things up because it's profitable and easier, or we can admit our present way of life is unsustainable and make the necessary sacrifices to avert disaster. It's probably too late anyway, honestly, but I have very little patience with this debate over whether the smoke coming from the curtains is poisonous while the whole damned house is on fire. The hell? How many smog alerts does Cincinnati have every Summer? We're going to spend another decade debating the existence of climate change? That's some stubborn, selfish bullshit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe fully that the earth's temperature fluctuates naturally and has been doing so over hundreds of millions of years. Science has proven this. Climate change is a real thing, always has been, always will be.

 

Natural fluctuation over thousands and thousands of years can be adapted to and obviously has been adapted to or we wouldn't be here today.  However, before humans and our modern technology, these changes took place over a MUCH longer time scale, giving things time to adapt.

 

But here's where the problem lies, since humans are pumping obscene amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every single day the time scale is shortening up tremendously. Thus not allowing time for adaptation.

 

Humans are not the cause of climate change, but we are most certainly responsible for the time scale in which it is happening right now.

 

To say we are not responsible for the massive spike in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution can almost be classified as delusional.

 

The earth will continue on whether we are on it or not, it certainly has been through much worse, but to be the main cause for such destruction to our home planet, ecosystem, and other living things is something we as a species should be ashamed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% of the scientific world disagrees with you.

Totally false.

As a member of the "scientific world" that you speak of, I can tell you that most scientists view the global warming nonsense for what it is - a political movement that borders on religious fanaticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe fully that the earth's temperature fluctuates naturally and has been doing so over hundreds of millions of years. Science has proven this. Climate change is a real thing, always has been, always will be.
 
Natural fluctuation over thousands and thousands of years can be adapted to and obviously has been adapted to or we wouldn't be here today.  However, before humans and our modern technology, these changes took place over a MUCH longer time scale, giving things time to adapt.
 
But here's where the problem lies, since humans are pumping obscene amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every single day the time scale is shortening up tremendously. Thus not allowing time for adaptation.
 
Humans are not the cause of climate change, but we are most certainly responsible for the time scale in which it is happening right now.
 
To say we are not responsible for the massive spike in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution can almost be classified as delusional.
 
The earth will continue on whether we are on it or not, it certainly has been through much worse, but to be the main cause for such destruction to our home planet, ecosystem, and other living things is something we as a species should be ashamed of.


You're joking, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Great thread! th_clapping2.gif  Lewdog AND Hayden M.

 

A true classic and blast from the past golden oldie bunch of ravings, I mean, postings.

 

 

ha ha.. no doubt, those two and haig88(I think that's it) are the only people I have ever put on ignore...  And I might not have even put Lew on ignore, I just thought he was a dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to sit here and claim to know anything about the climate (although neither do politicians), but in order to try and give a little bit of context to the alarming predictions being thrown around nowadays about global warming, I'll present to you some predictions made by renowned scientists from the 1970's. It's basically just a reminder that people with numerous degrees on their wall aren't always necessarily correct. 

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970

 

Personally, I have no clue as to whether global warming is an actual threat to mankind ( I wont call it "climate change" because that doesn't mean anything). What I do know is that if it is man-made, there is nothing that the United States can do to curb it in the slightest. Unless you get countries like China and India to also comply with whatever environmental regulations you set forth, it will all be for naught anyway. 

 

I would advise just to read the link first before we start calling for higher taxes as a means of lowering the sea-levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, keep in mind where alarming science news comes from:

 

 

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174

 

[attachment=1355:phd051809s.gif]

 

 

Secondly, minus the alarmism, this is exactly how science is supposed to work.  Given the best evidence of the day, scientists hypothesize plausible explanations of natural (or unnatural) phenomena.  As new evidence becomes available, what seemed plausible just a few years ago may no longer be.  And that's OK!  This constant refinement of our understanding has given us mobile phones, the internets and adorable pictures of kittens.

 

After years of refinement, collection of new evidence, further refinement, etc. we end up where we are today.  The VAST MAJORITY* of the scientific community says that the current trend of climate change is attributable to human activity, namely dumping obscene amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 (oil, coal, gas) into the atmosphere.

 

* If GWB had a mandate at 50.7% of the popular vote, WTF does this mean for the 97% consensus among climate scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to sit here and claim to know anything about the climate (although neither do politicians), but in order to try and give a little bit of context to the alarming predictions being thrown around nowadays about global warming, I'll present to you some predictions made by renowned scientists from the 1970's. It's basically just a reminder that people with numerous degrees on their wall aren't always necessarily correct. 

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970

 

Personally, I have no clue as to whether global warming is an actual threat to mankind ( I wont call it "climate change" because that doesn't mean anything). What I do know is that if it is man-made, there is nothing that the United States can do to curb it in the slightest. Unless you get countries like China and India to also comply with whatever environmental regulations you set forth, it will all be for naught anyway. 

 

I would advise just to read the link first before we start calling for higher taxes as a means of lowering the sea-levels. 

 

The US can certainly curb it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...