Quick Fact: Drudge, Washington Times falsely claim allegedly hacked emails show global warming is not real
The Drudge Report suggested that global warming is "junk science," by linking to a Washington Times editorial that falsely claims a series of emails that were reportedly stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit [CRU] show that global warming is an "unproven theory." In fact, the validity of climate science is not hinged on the contents of these emails, some of which conservative media have taken out of context; reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading scientific body for assessing climate change research, are the product of thousands of scientists worldwide.
Drudge, Wash. Times editorial falsely suggest stolen emails show that global warming is "junk science" and an "unproven theory"
Washington Times: "Revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming." A November 24 Washington Times editorial, titled, "Hiding evidence of global cooling," claimed that emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of Anglia (UEA) show that "these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory."
The Drudge Report: "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers..." Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to the Times editorial on the Drudge Report with the headline, "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers." From the Drudge Report:
Fact: NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
Fact: Thousands of scientists from around the world participate in IPCC process
IPCC: "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a scientific body established by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organisation, has established that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The IPCC "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide," and its reports are the product of contributions from "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world."
(I understand the emails in question weren't about deception, I just like to handicap the wingnuts by conceding a point or two).
The reality of it is: The government invented the internet. The government works for WE THE PEOPLE. It is OUR internet. WE should be the ones profiting from it, not Bill Gates or the GOOGLE guys.
We need to figure out a way to turn those profits around and get them back to the poor. It's our internet and OUR money!
Secondly, I wouldn't criticize China too much as that cheap calculator was most likely manufactured there. Ironic, eh? You need to give up on ideological fairy tales. They don't do you any good when it comes to understanding how the world actually works.
Agreed.
But at least he didn't get into nonsense about other firms making calculators and giving people a choice and creating competitions and bettering quality and forcing deriving a market value based on the various competition in the market.
At least he didn't go there. Even if he did, we could tell him that a command economy that is centrally planned provides the highest quality at the best prices.
Just look at the great stuff produced in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, North Korea and Cuba. Centralized planning gives you high quality at prices that are fair to the people. And, as benefit....nobody gets rich!
What more could you ask for?
Perfect analogy!
Also, couldn't agree more about there being ZERO reference to or insinuation of deception in the robbed emails.
Talks of tricks and keeping information from circulating or being published certainly is not deceptive. It's simply a necessary endeavor in saving the world from dumb people who don't understand that anything that can be taxed SHOULD be taxed and that anything in nature can be attributed to something that can be taxed. Taxation is the only way to control nature.
Republicans are fools!
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
A call to end the IPCC? Does that "mean something?"
You know, you give you deniers all the statistics in the world showing that the earth is warming. And instead of thanking these great scientists for their discovery that only CO2 coming out of industrialized/wealthy-ish nations is responsible for global warming...you deniers get lost in the backdrop of science speak that takes place behind the research.
Look, if you aren't bright enough to understand that the DATA proves that not only is the earth heating up at a deadly rate, but also that first-world CO2 is the one and only reason for it...well how can you be smart enough to fully understand the context of back and forth conversations between the men that figured all this out?
Please. You worry about complaining about rising taxes. Let those of us with scientific minds solve this climate control issue.
What data? What's been left out? What's been fudged? His words in the emails don't state that he did either of those things.
False. The scientists of the Copenhagen Diagnosis have produced the Seven Global Warming Misconceptions answer page. Regarding your assertion they state:
Citations, please?
They do no such thing.
Exactly what data it being concealed? Anything specific that you can point to?
Okay, I understand now. You only have an elementary concept of how science works. That explains a lot of your post. I think you meant to put something different from "FINDER" in your screen name.
And these scientist might even be some of the same ones whose emails were stolen! So, we know their data is correct. Cause they said they used tricks and left out stuff that didn't support the conclusion we are all hoping for...so really, whats the problem?
"You only have an elementary concept of how science works."
You are giving him too much credit. Science works in a very complex manner, and it can't be understood by the average person. Therefore, we need experts who talk in their own lingo (ie, terms like 'tricks' and 'data manipulation') to figure all this out and then tell us that 'tricks' and 'data manipulation' don't mean what we think they mean after we find out they talk about using 'tricks' and 'manipulation data'.
Let's just leave this to the experts....and by experts I mean those scientists that aren't skeptical about global warming...and accept whatever they tell us at face value.
What data? What's been left out? What's been fudged?
Will these direct quotes below from the exposed CRU code suffice? They are programmer's notes found within various CRU code files (make sure you read the last one as I think it covers all three of your questions):
Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season (April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean). Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.
Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! [code removed] fudge factor
In the next section you quote the Copenhagen Diagnosis (my diagnosis for Copenhagen is terminal) and end with this gem:
The scientists explain that the known natural cycles and processes are accounted for in climate models.
Really? Let's see what one of the climate scientists, Nobel laureate/NCAR/IPCC guru Kevin Trenberth, has to say in one of the emails:
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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
I already know your spin to this already because you provide it in one of your other silky and silly responses in this thread below (btw, great stuff, absolutely hilarious). The article Hoosier cited stated the following:
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
You responded, "Except he didn't admit any such thing. Context is important." You then provided a "larger portion from the email" and then continued with your spin:
Do you get it? This is a personal, private email written in a casual tone. He's joking around about the unseasonably cold weather in Boulder at that time and joking that it's a travesty that THAT WEATHER can't be explained. I dare say most of us have made jokes about local weather with regard to global warming, regardless of which side we're on. He's making fun of the denialists who look at local weather and conflate it with global climate. In the next paragraph he gets more serious, addressing some of the data the denialists are seizing on and calling it "a LOT of nonsense."
Now you might not realize why that's so darn funny. That, or you are guilty of a lie of omission and know what I'm about to drop on you (if you are unaware of this then perhaps you should do your homework before making ignorant assumptions). There's another email in that Ternberth thread that was sent two days later in response to Tom Wigley's disagreement to his statement. Here's the nugget you may have missed:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Do YOU get it? Some joke all right. And how does Trenberth's email mesh with your Copenhagen Diagnosis claim? Remember? "The scientists explain that the known natural cycles and processes are accounted for in climate models." I think him saying "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going" and "we are not close to balancing the energy budget" and "we can not account for what is happening in the climate system" blow that claim, and the often-parroted claim that "the science is settled," completely out of the water.
You also brush aside the claim that the emails "expose the coordinated effort to control the info and data" by scoffingly saying, "They do no such thing." You guys are starting to make this too easy. Did you even read any of the emails? Here are just a few of them that make your argument look rather baseless and silly.
The comedy in your response continues:
Exactly what data it being concealed? Anything specific that you can point to?
Is this or this or this or this specific enough? Perhaps it is time you remove the word "Science" from your screen name since you apparently are incapable of doing even a modicum of independent investigation.
Liar. Pants on Fire lying on exhibit here.
Until you learn more about this subject, you should stop showing everyone else how little you really know about this subject.
I swear, why do people who don't have a freakin' clue come here thinking they can educate us? This is NOT a righwing blog - we know what we're talking about! MMFA uses facts, and only facts, in their 'research' pieces!
Exactly!
And facts don't come from climate deniers! The data proves it.
I personally don't come here to educate you. I come to re-educate you. You have fallen victim to severe AGW indoctrination (maybe I'll start calling it SAGWI). Giving up the cult life is hard when you've swallowed the scripture so deeply so I really feel for you. Rehab will be tough but don't fret. It will all work out in the end. This fantasy world you have been living in will disappear and at some point who will have all but forgotten about it. I hate to rub it in, but I do need to correct your MMfA "facts" claim. I think the word you were looking for was "spin." Cheers!
Certainly, predictive models don't lend 100% accuracy. That is why they are called 'predictive'.
You are arguing a point that doesn't matter. Certainly, no one can (with assured infallibility) predict the future. Why would you use that as your means to attempt to discredit the science which is already proven and a case which is already closed? Global warming due to CO2 exists and is real. Just because predictive computer attempts to depict what the realness of warming will lead to are not 100% accurate is in no way a repudiation of the fact that global warming is real and a result of CO2. CO2 from 1st world countries.
So, stop trying to cloud the pool. You are basing your argument on predictive computer science, when real science is what has proven global warming.
We see thru you and your effort to distort.
Of course we plainly (as seen by climate-gate) know know that there are other factors, natural occurring, like solar activity, water vapor, and countless other things that change the climate. Those of us that think never did discount volcanic activity as a factor... So things you just can't control and it's time mankind and the SO CALLED scientist and money grubbers get it through their feeble little brains.
Climategate is the best thing to ever happen to "climate change". Now we'll be able to focus on reality instead of hyperbole...
I coined a phrase for you guys the other day that is gold in my eyes: AGW-fraud deniers. Best of luck keeping up the illusion. You may be fooling yourselves, but unfortunately for you, this story is NEVER going away and the AGW house of cards (11/21 entry) keeps on tumbling down. As I had previously predicted, it won't be long before MMfA drops GW as a "Featured Topic." Tsk. Tsk.
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
What do you think will happen, all of a sudden a new topic will come up? What something like 'sustainable capitalism"? Something like that????? Huh? Yeah, you'd like that, too.
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit
MMFA apologists/deniers: "Nothing to see here. Move along."
Except he didn't admit any such thing. Context is important. Here's a larger portion from that email:
Do you get it? This is a personal, private email written in a casual tone. He's joking around about the unseasonably cold weather in Boulder at that time and joking that it's a travesty that THAT WEATHER can't be explained. I dare say most of us have made jokes about local weather with regard to global warming, regardless of which side we're on. He's making fun of the denialists who look at local weather and conflate it with global climate. In the next paragraph he gets more serious, addressing some of the data the denialists are seizing on and calling it "a LOT of nonsense."
We're saying there's nothing to see here because, when the emails are read in full and in context, there really is nothing to see here. No hiding of data, no manipulation of data. As Jones stated in the article to which you linked:
I think it's worth pointing out that there isn't the tiniest piece of data that anyone can point to as having been altered or deleted. Not one bit.
You're very right, though, about the relative seriousness of the two topics. It's very important that we be ready to counter the lies and bad science of the denialists.
And how magnificently well you are making it hard for them to be dishonest. The proof of evidence is what most deceivers will hardly ever have, primarily if it can be intelligently proven, that they are misinterpreting and taking everything out of context.
I hope more will learn some from you.
And thanks for the "Seven Global Warming Misconceptions" link btw.
What did Nazi stand for again? Oh yeah, National Socialism. I don't know my history so well. Weren't they on the eco-fascist end of the spectrum in regards to the environment. I honestly hope this is a joke site.
On a more serious note, you have this document. It's the negotiating text (that means "draft" in case LawrenceEgo comes around) for the UNFCCC treaty they were trying to get through Copenhagen (not in a million years now thankfully). Give it a read. I think it would fall into the International Socialism realm. I provide some nice excerpts from it on this MMfA thread (do a search for "compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity"). Great read.
Finally, I've said this before in another thread as it seems you AGW-fraud deniers frequently try to compare skeptics (also now known as "the people who were right about AGW") to Creationists and ID folk. It's a hoot considering a lot of AGW cultists are fanatical with their blind faith in their AGW religion. As I've said before, many of you would have been at home on the Roman Inquisitor's bench at Galileo's trial. Who is looking like they are geocentric, anti-science flat-earthers now? The irony.
So Colonel, akin to people like you who say a 10-week old fetus is not a human being? Talk about denying science. You're an expert.
Speaking of "people who are heavily invested in denying" you AGW-fraud deniers here on MMfA should really actually start looking into this story a bit more deeply before you come here and make "paraphrased statements and opinions" from left wing blogs.
You had already succeeded at this before, but you really are making complete fools of yourselves at this point. The AGW game is coming to an end. Find a cause that actually has some worth to glom onto and forget you were ever so pathetically gullible. Trust me, the sooner you do that the better.
Deniers want all temperature gauges to be out in the middle of nowhere.
Except humans want to know the temperature in their cities and college campuses. That's reality.
It's not evidence of bias.
And no, there are no issues with how the data from any of the good stations are apparently arbitrarily "adjusted" by USHCN/NOAA. And of course the Marysville site is just an anomaly. And there is absolutely no correlation between any of these siting issues with temperature records. And even if there were issues, there is no evidence that scientists would do anything untoward to adjust data to account for troubling "blips" in any of the temperature records.
Visiting you AGW folk over the last week sure has become a whole lot more fun. Cheers!
First, your "one journalist" claim. That spin might work if Monbiot was just another journalist and not such a strong proponent of AGW. He's the Andy Revkin of the UK. Monbiot is still in your AGW camp spinning away, but you could learn a lesson about this scandal and the emails from Monbiot if you opened your mind a bit. He is "dismayed and deeply shaken by them" and says, "There's no use pretending this isn't a major blow." You might want to share that last quote with your sect and the MSM. Print out this excerpt from the article while you're at it:
But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Seems Monbot (typo intentional) thinks there is something to see here. And it isn't just "one journalist." It's also some of Jones' peers, and the list will grow (11/21). And the fact that you use Jones' statement to defend this crime scene is pretty darn funny. I have used some of these links above, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the mantra (repetition will help to counter the AGW indoctrination to which you fell victim). Here. Let's play a little game. Let's repeat Jones' statement and you can click on the inserted links to see why this is laughable.
We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published. Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that.
As for your final statement "I think it's worth pointing out" that practically everything you tried spinning here has been "thoroughly debunked" to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite posters here. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Cheers!
I hold to the latter. A climate model program is a complex thing with 100's and/or 1000's or parameters. The parameters must be adjusted until the program predicts the past. Then the "right" data must be fed in. That "right data" is what is now in question. CRU is the main source of data for most of the climate models. It's not a good sign if the folks in the CRU won't simply publish the data in the open. It's also not a good sign if the programmers don't publish there source codes.
All in all, the entire field of climatology is teetering on being completely discredited. Their only way out is the open up everything so anyone can find the truth.
Does anyone want to pay significantly higher energy prices based on the words of these junk scientists? NOT ME!
I have deep empathy for human and beast. I have in fact been mocked here for sharing that I have been live-trapping and releasing houseflies for years. I donate more really than I can afford to causes I care deeply about and certainly don't appreciate the likes of Henry Waxman and John Forbes Kerry dictating where my limited resources should go, especially since they will be going toward "combating" the ridiculous CO2 bogeyman. As an environmentalist myself for 20 years, I fear what effects this AGW debacle will have on the legitimate green causes I care about. And that has been the primary rub in all of this AGW gibberish for me all along. As I said in one of my posts here a while back, the downside is that when AGW is exposed for being more political than scientific, the environmental movement that I am a part of will take it on the chin. The resulting erosion in public confidence for future environmental claims will cause people to not take them as seriously as they should, hurting the overall credibility and goals of every environmental organization. Another downside is the diversion of large amounts of resources from real environmental issues like habitat destruction and species eradication.
Some emails written in private question global-warming even by those who see it happening. The emails are hacked, portions of them sliced and diced to prove that those scientists don't believe or can prove it. Hence, ConLogic deduces that it is all a conspiracy. NEXT,
We were led into war by Bush/Cheney with proof of WMDs'..they never really knew for sure, 1000's are killed and according to ConLogic, it was just bad information.
Let's be fair and prosecute both...that is PrincelyLogic.
Okay, Cons sound fair...
BTW. Apparently these 31,000 + scientist don't agree with the "consensus" on global warming.
That's the list of "scientists" that includes dentists right?
Oh, noe.. has Orly Taitz given up on the Birthers, and moved to Climate Denialism?
No, he wasn't.
Just terrible. But so was Saudi (they even have had telethons to raise money for the bombers families). Saudi is still a close ally of the US. And the war was sold based on a threat to the US homeland.
Then what of all the resolutions ingnored by Isreal? And as for "wiggle room" there was plenty, the inspectors were in the country!
You know, he was a very bad person, but there are other really bad people around the world that are not facing the same fate. And they don't have oil. How odd.
50 million freed? Really? Saddam had enslaved his entire popullation? So your take is that those who have been tortured and killed since Saddam was deposed were better of than those who were tortured and killed while he ruled?
Unless you're feeling lucky.
Why wouldn't you do that and then call all your friends to get in on the low hanging fruit, too?
Those are people willing to pay actual money to give you those kinds of odds; not just some dudes posting their thoughts on a liberal blog.
I love the self-fulfilling liberal media myth, where the GOP spreads a bunch of nonsense, and when sane people laugh at it and de-bunk it, they have "proof" that the librul media is on defense.
In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
1. Retreat into the ivory tower 2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process 3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values.
Here's a beaut from the Hulme piece (he just so happens to be a climate scientist the University of East Anglia--yes, the host of Phil Jones and that vaunted institution, the CRU):
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
No, this story is nothing for you guys to worry about. It will go away toot sweet.
But make sure you have about 10 times as many people working to examine the right side of the aisle, because that's where almost all of the lies, distortions and omissions will come from.
And you couldn't have looked through the emails AND the rsponses from the people they're from and come to the conclusions you've come to.
So what does that show us? That you have preconceived notions and all you're interested in doing is getting those notions validated. As such, YOUR opinions about what MMFA should do are likely ALSO colored by that same lack of interest in all sides of the story, and they belie your stated interest in both sides being equally examined!
You guys are so freakin' transparent. You really aren't very good at this.
Oops! Almost forgot who I was dealing with. Delly is among the most rabid of the AGW cult here. She is a fanatical AGW believer who I can't remember ever conceding even a single issue in this debate. Really it's quite pathetic. Well, the bad news for you is this is not going away. And the fact is it will be this story that finally pushes AGW over the cliff. I haven't thrown this one out there in a while and what better time to do it. Dully, you are the poster child of the AGW-fraud deniers. Cheers!
What is your basic moral value that you feel is being persecuted?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are a moral and generally good person. If that's the case, then how does "it's too expensive" justify your position? My inclination, if I were in your position of being unsure whether or not this stuff is factual, would be to consider that monetary considerations are less important than the existence of life on earth.
So if that's not why climate change makes you so upset, what is the reason?
I guess what I'm saying is that you're a lot more likely to sway me (assume I'm "undecided") if you give me a good reason to want to take your position, since, as you've seen, trying to prove the scientists wrong is obviously so difficult.
The trainers on TV and radio have their incentive - corporate profits that benefit (short term) by being irresponsible - but the suckers buying into it don't have anything to gain personally. They've just been scared that they might have to adjust their big fat lifestyle in some way if they face up to reality.
It's a primitive emotional thing, with hundreds of denier websites available to let them convince themselves they're rational. It may be a generation before the loud but ignorant fantasy-landers are completely irrelevant, hopefully there's enough progress made, in spite of them, that they'll be a funny footnote 25 years from now.
Until they publish the source code of all climate modeling software, until they publish all data used, until they publish all choices of parameters used for tuning their climate modes, they are disgraced and should be shunned by the world.
They have embarrassed the scientific community.
Private hacked emails have what to do with scientific research?
The codes, data, and parameters are availible.
I think there are any number of embarrasments in the scientific community. Remember the nuclear handgenade, or star wars anti missle defence? How would you compare those two programs with some stolen emails?
"However, as climate scientist Richard Somerville explained yesterday, “The ice has no agenda.” Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, the world’s glaciers are disappearing, and half of the United States has been declared an agricultural disaster area. And it’s the the hottest decade in recorded history."
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/25/superfreaks-climategate/
Why didn't the hundreds of lies that lead us to invade Iraq make a mockery of neoCons?
You can keep on spinning. And defending the frauds over at the UK's Climate Research Unit. But it won't change the trend in the temperature. Which is why the frauds in the UK got caught up destroying evidence, refusing to release data, etc. etc.
Given the CRU event and the damage it has done please consider the following.
1) Just plainly state that there should be an investigation into data manipulation and that all scientists should be forced to release all data and source code like REAL SCIENTISTS DO. Stop defending criminals by talking about peer review when they were reviewing each other's papers. You didn't rig data, collude to prevent others from being published, sabotage other scientists careers. You have to distance yourself immediately from the MBH et al ilk!
2) No longer talk about CO2. It's dead, proven to be rigged data and continuing to talk about it will only discredit the whole environmental movement.
3) Talk about mercury pollution. 40 tons a year from coal, 35 tons a year from garbage incineration and that is just from North America (and we are not that bad compared to Asia and Africa, scary but true!). Talk about the watershed destruction in coal mining.
4) Offer up a straight forward alternative. Shale gas for the short term renewables for short, medium and long term. The best thing for the environment in the last 50 years is the shale gas technology! Not pretty or renewable but it gives us 50 to 60 years if we decommission all coal & nuke plants and double that if we just phase them out.
So bring the shale gas online as fast as possible and convert/shutdown the coal plants first. With a lot less than 50 years of research and development renewables will be working and cost competitive.
Point out that we are also running out of uranium so nuclear fission plants may not have fuel in the future.
If we allow stupid LIES and pseudo science like that practiced by the AWG crowd (MBH et al) to be used to tax us then yes we will all be a lot poorer. If we just push the resource efficiency like rmi.org then we will save money.
If we actually force scientists like Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones and the rest of the AWG crowd to make all the data and code publicly available LIKE REAL SCIENTISTS do then we will progress.
From: A real environmentalist!
Cheers
Reading the e-mails alone won't work. But, then, you knew the answer before you made a comment because you rely on people with an agenda. You've convinced yourself because you've heard it so often, you think you thought of it. Do some real homework. It's not easy, so I doubt you'll do it.
For example, here's what a climate scientist had to say about the decline in the record:“Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was (hidden) written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.
Comment: Are there any plans to make all your climate data publicly available?
[Response: Already there. GISTEMP, ModelE. We'll put up a more comprehensive listing in the next post. - gavin]
More importantly, as has often been said, there are no, as in none, peer reviewed papers that disprove or even crdibly challenge, AGW. You've got nothing but bluster and spin generally funded by oil companies.
But, realistically, that's your comfort zone, isn't it?
In a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change.
We speculate that the observed surface temperature changes might be a result of local surface heating processes and not related to radiative greenhouse gas forcing.
A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial periods of the past 650,000 years, even under the 'fast response' framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed.
We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records.
The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.
Since the models underestimate the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and overestimate the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated global warming is also overestimated by the models.
But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world.
We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
But it seems self-evident to us that, recognizing the limited due diligence of paleoclimate journal peer review, it would have been prudent for someone to have actually checked MBH98 data and methods against original data before adopting MBH98 results in the main IPCC promotional graphics.
These studies are hardly 'independent'. If all the authors in the multiproxy articles are listed, one sees much overlapping. Mann himself was a co-author of two supposedly 'independent' studies; his sometime co-author (as well as Bradley’s sometime co-author) Jones was co-author of two of the others. Even Crowley and Lowery [2000], where there is no apparent overlap, stated that they used data supplied by Jones. This hardly amounts to 'independence' in any conventional use of the term.
Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.
There's nothing hidden but all the data, all the programs and source code and all the parameterizations or those programs that make them product the results you have published. We also have one "scientist's" threat to destroy the data rather than make it public.
Your science IS discredited. Climatology is compromised and should be changed the the "Church of Climate Beliefs" or the "Church of Climatology".
Publish all data, all source codes, all parameterizations of the programs or be held in contempt by more and more scientists and ordinary people.
The only way to fix this problem is with a healthy dose of disinfectant and that can only be done by shining the light of day on all your secret research.