If global warming is real, then why do scientists, who believe it’s real, have to lie to my their point?

NewsBusters: ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media’s Job
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job

“If anyone should know what real academic discussion looks like, it’s Krugman, who had a brilliant career in economics before he became a fiery Times op-ed columnist.”

Okay Mr. Quigley, come out from under Krugman’s desk, wipe off your chin, and let’s discuss this rationally. Can you imagine any evidence ever coming to light which would convince Krugman that climate change is not legitimate science? Conversely, can you imagine any such evidence which would convince Will that global warming is incontrovertibly factual?

Neither of these guys possesses the objectivity to credibly assess an issue. They are both very smart, and very biased.

As for your biased headline, what actual “science” (i.e. facts) did Krugman “drop” on the skeptics?

ll rght, Mr. Qgl, lks lk Krgmn s rd t b srvcd gn. Gt bck t wrk nd rn tht prl ncklc.

Make not my, sorry.

Well well well… it only took how many weeks for Mediaite to talk about “Climategate.”

Phew… that was a fun wait. But it IS good to see that you’ve figured out how to rationalize why it’s “not that important.” It looks like the left’s strategy is going to be “dig in, and say ‘NO,’ no matter the evidence.”

“Do these emails show the ‘science’ is not as ‘scientific’ as the media and politician’s would have us believe?” asks the public.

“NO! You’re stupid, and you just don’t understand.” reply the Liberals… and Mediaite applauds. Pathetic.

@straitshooter @ImNotBlue:

“Do these emails show the ’science’ is not as ’scientific’ as the media and politician’s would have us believe?” asks the public.

Yes, which is why Climategate is a real story. From the post: “laypeople tend to be deeply bothered when scientists, who are supposed to be objective and above the fray, try their hands at politics.”

But swinging the other way and saying that science is ALL spin, or that all climate science is made up because of the fishiness of this one isolated string of emails, is as bad a cop-out as saying that scientists are god-emperors whose work should never be questioned.

Not all climate science is made up, but basing your opinion on the words of a man who argues that liberals are correct 100 percent of the time is as irresponsible as basing your opinion on the words of a man who argues that conservatives are correct 100 percent of the time.

Will and Krugman cannot have an actual debate, because neither can sway the other.

Why do the governments of India and China disregard the doomsayers while America’s government considers punitive taxes to help protect the planet from a threat that cannot be proven by any reasonable scientific standard? Perhaps it’s because the people of India and China know that the world is not racing toward disaster.

Do you remember the population bomb? Or the coming ice age? In the 1970s, the media trumpeted these as possible catastrophes without worrying about specifics. The ice age hypotheis is now a joke (or a bad trilogy), and the population bomb was defused with ingenuity in crop production.

Please link me to an article by Krugman where he makes a persuasive, non-biased case that climate change is a real threat, or change the headline of this post.

Resume sucking

Robert Quigley says:
November 30, 2009 at 10:23 am

Oh, that’s just dumb:

But swinging the other way and saying that science is ALL spin, or that all climate science is made up because of the fishiness of this one isolated string of emails, is as bad a cop-out as saying that scientists are god-emperors whose work should never be questioned.

Nobody’s saying “all science” is spin… it’s a straw-man argument set up to give a rational on why the media has been so far behind in this story. A really feeble excuse.

Clearly, the alarmism that has become politically convenient isn’t happening… this is just another bit of evidence towards that. We (humans) need to clean up our atmosphere, and do everything we can do to keep the planet healthy… but the Al Gore’s of the world who are trying to make a buck off fear and naiveté, are simply liars and hacks. They know the science doesn’t support their theories, but the argument, “We need to save the planet, or in a thousand years, it might get worse” doesn’t look good on a bumper sticker.

We knew it was fake the moment it became a political exercise… something of this (alleged) importance wouldn’t become the calling card for any political party. It’s simply an injection of a fake issue designed to raise campaign donations, and recruit new voters who are either too foolish, or too scared to know they’re being swindled.

But hey… thanks for posting something on Climategate. It only took about a month of badgering from the readers of this site, before the writers (actually, just ONE writer thus far) finally responded. As stated earlier, the NYTimes said they weren’t going to publish anything about the story because the emails were “stolen.” A hypocritical position for the Times, and a clear bit of interest for this (supposedly) journalistically focused website. But you missed that story. So my question to you, Mr. Quigley, why does that say about this site? Are you actively advocating a position, or is your research so poor, that it doesn’t matter how many people and posters talk about it… it takes someone like Krugman’s comments for you to take notice?

A ‘brilliant career in economics’ does not an honest person make. Ask Bernie Madoff. At this stage, Krugman’s NYT pedigree positions him in the same boat as Ed Begley…a left-leaning media hack.

This is actually our second “climategate” related story:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ed-begley-and-stuart-varney-argue-climategate-on-fox-news/

Did Bernie Madoff have a career in economics?

Krugman is stupid. Always has been and always will be. He’s a lackey for all things leftist and one of the real powerful zombies in the left wing of American politics. Below the quote sums it all up for me!

From yesterday’s UKGuardian:

“Sharing data and allowing skeptics to review your data and methods is an indispensable element of the scientific method. Climatologists have been avoiding this practice for years. The attempts to blacklist authors and journals with contrary views is grounds to have all their previous publications retracted. The email revelations leave no doubt that we have been subject to the greatest hoax of our times.”

“If anyone should know what real academic discussion looks like, it’s Krugman, ”

did you actually put on a cheerleaders outfit as you wrote that, or rather just leave the impression that you did?!

You guys are hacks, what a crappy way to start off the week.

The point Krugman is making and being made by anyone with half a brain who has read the hacked emails, is that the scientist in question is not changing data and there is no smoking gun. The scientist’s data still points to global warming as does all the data from all objective scientific sources. Not one pundit can point to anything in the emails that says global warming is a “hoax”.

I’m certain the Mediaite writer IS aware that Will went to Oxford, has Ph.D from Princeton and was professor at Harvard to contrast to Krugman’s brilliance in academic discussion, right?

I know the Mediaite reported on what happened on Sunday talk show, but ended the piece with his opinion.

“But in the backlash to those emails, people who do not understand the messy business of science are quick to jump to far bigger conclusions about global warming and climate science than the handful of hacked emails really justify.”

Is the Mediaite writer a Scientist? I he qualified to make such a statement? I’m not a scientist, I’m a news consumer. I have no clue if Global warming is rel or not. Why would a writer not a scientist quickly write to defend the climategate emails as bunk?

Global warming is climed to be scientific fact BUT Scientists also have claimed that Global warming is not real. Which makes it just as much politics as science which may be the reason the Mediaite write feels confident to jump into the debate.

Here is Nate Silver’s take on the emails…

“Actually, what you have is a scientist, Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate (I’d include some of the graphics from An Inconvenient Truth in this category, FWIW.)

But let’s be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself. Again, I’m not trying to excuse what he did — we make a lot of charts here and 538 and make every effort to ensure that they fairly and accurately reflect the underlying data (in addition to being aesthetically appealing.) I wish everybody would abide by that standard.

Still: I don’t know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger. And yet that’s literally what some of these bloggers are saying!

Incidentally, 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th warmist year on record, according to the conspiracists at NASA.”

forget the emails, the real damning and inarguable evidence is in the modeling source code and how they had to massage and in some instances just make up numbers to attempt to prove their point

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2394493/posts

the data manipulation has been know for years but has largely been ignored by the media until now, here is a 3 year old paper on Michael Mann’s “scientific methods”

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

More to my point on Global Warming proven by Science. Science being a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Here’s a couple dozen Scientists who have issued doubts that Global warming real or is caused by humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

My point that just as much politics as is science. Unless someone has time to refute the science in all those doubting scientists listed.

Can Krugman or any of you ‘experts’ please tell me; what temperature the planet is suposed to be. I mean, if you are telling me that the world is heating up too much, then what is the temperature of the planet suposed to be? Without knowing the correct temperature of the planet, how can you really tell if it’s too hot or too cold. Maybe, just maybe the planet is just runing through one of it’s cycles.

I’m just saying…

Colby Hall says:
November 30, 2009 at 10:41 am

Man, I knew someone was going to bring that up. That story wasn’t ABOUT Climategate… it simply mentioned it. And as much as I respect Steve… Climategate wasn’t the focus of the story.

Sorry, it does not count.

DWHarper says:
November 30, 2009 at 11:15 am

You essentially just copy/pasted Krugman’s comments… how is that an explanation of what he was trying to say. That’s not what he “tried” to say, it’s what he “said.” Furthermore, it shows you don’t understand the issue, but allow him to think for you… what he says must be true, so you don’t have to do your own analysis.

Still waiting on that apology, buddy.

DWHarper says:
November 30, 2009 at 11:18 am

Oh good… at least you let a few people do the thinking for you.

Nate’s point is well taken though… but that’s the point from so many on the right. Global warming may or may not be happening, and we should do all we can to help clean up the globe… however, the alarmism, the fear campaigns, the outlandish statements and the flat out lies make the issue hard to believe. It’s a campaign issue, not a science issue… and these emails prove just that. A real scientist lets the data speak for itself… apparently here, the data didn’t speak loudly enough to induce the hysteria the “scientific community” (and Liberals) wanted… so they faked it.

Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever. I don’t know who said it but follow the money because that’s where you always find the answers you’re looking for. Where there is money to be made you’ll find a hoax somewhere. Climate change is the little brother to Evolution. Scientists having a conclusion for which they have to manipulate the data to arrive at the forgone conclusion. The UN, like the Ostrich, has its head buried but unlike the Ostrich its buried in a far darker smellier place. In a whole series of eye-popping revelations (tampering with data, suppressing access, pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists), the single most egregious and undeniable fact is that the so-called researchers at CRU-East Anglia University is that they have destroyed the raw data. Dumped it. Irretrievably disposed of it forever.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

ImNotBlue said it best: ““NO! You’re stupid, and you just don’t understand.” reply the Liberals… and Mediaite applauds. Pathetic.” It’s like you’re inside our heads… creepy.

Apparently you all haven’t been reading Lord Beck’s book Arguing With Idiots. You must have read his first one, Arguing Like Idiots. I think the main issue here is that many of you don’t understand science, nor academia. Sure attack Krugman and the Liberals. Or, pick up a book and educate yourselves. This is getting ridiculous.

Here we go Chuck! “Climate change is the little brother to Evolution.” Once you bring in creationism I really have to wonder whether you put your pants on all by yourself of if someone has to help you. One leg at a time, buddy.

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 12:21 pm

So your argument is that Conservatives (or people, like myself, who are simply right of center), just “don’t get science and academia.” Could you phrase that in a less arrogant or elitist way? No… I didn’t think so.

But aside from insulting folks, your larger point is what? Oh, there was no larger point… just a personal attack. Gotcha. Please, tell me what “you smart folks” know… without actually making an argument.

You’ve put your faith in a group of people and in a philosophy… but the philosophy isn’t scientific, you’re being scammed, and you apparently don’t care. When someone says, “HERE SEE THE EVIDENCE,” you stick your fingers in your ears, and say “NO! I DON’T WANT TO KNOW!”

You essentially proved my original statement, even though you were trying to attack me with it. Your response to my statement that the left doesn’t want to talk about the evidence:

I think the main issue here is that many of you don’t understand science, nor academia. Sure attack Krugman and the Liberals. Or, pick up a book and educate yourselves. This is getting ridiculous.

Pretty much exactly what I said. Thanks for providing further proof.

From an interview of Al Gore in online greeniac magazine Grist from July 1, 2008 (bold in Gore’s reply mine):

[GRIST.ORG:]There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

[GORE:] I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Mr. Quigley, your thoughts.

Sorry, forgot to link it. http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

Exactly what is it again that makes Krugman an expert on this subject? That he’s an economist?

What has been amazing about this process is that normally the press falls over itself when a whistle-blower situation like this rears up. Normally they go out of their way to protect the indivual(s) and highlight their bravery and elevate their evidence. In this case they have done more work to justify not reporting on it. The Times even had a writer state they would not print the emails because they were never meant to be seen by the general public. (Let that irony soak in for a moment.)

The emails show numerous things that call the “science” into question. First they were researching with a bias by trying to find evidence that would contradict the Medieval warming period – because that is a serious compromise to the “unprecedented” claim of contemporary warming. This is the Tree-Ring dust-up. When their research provided no contradiction they manipulated the statistics to show what they were looking for. There is also numerous instances where they rebuffed FIA requests for the research, over the course of years. Some found inconsistancies in the research but the data was not provided.

Also found were instances where they wanted to discredit scientific papers that were willing to publish contradictory evidence. This is where their “peer-rview” standard comes into play. We are told it is settled science because of the peer-review process, but the emails show they would no longer recognize those publications that put forth opposing research, thereby silencing or removing contradictiions and appearing as if everyone was in line.

ImNotBlue: you make it too easy on us. Do you need proof??

(CNN) — Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists…..

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

….I would say that’s not just a couple of people with a theory. Your ignorance is showing my friend. And you don’t wear it well! Thanks for providing further proof.

But how many scientists based their opinions on what could be manufactured evidence? How many scientists fudged the numbers to support Global Warming? The answer is that we really don’t know. We just assumed that they were basing their findings on scientific methods, but now we’re not too sure. These e-mails have thrown at least a little bit of doubt about the subject.

So 90% of the 3,146 scientists questioned are all in on this? “Fudging” the numbers? Wow. Nice try.

I don’t trust a weatherman over five days, what kind of sense does it make to listen to a glorified one with regards to a hundred years from now? That the whole ‘green’ movement is a liberal progressive one doesn’t help matters at all especially when PBO puts Van Jones in charge of it. Since liberals will do whatever they can to fool, scare, and shame people into getting their agenda through, ClimateGate comes as no surprise.

The MSM can put their fingers in their ears and yell, ‘la la la la’ all they like. As some Brit newspaper wrote, the only man-made global warming happening is coming from the alarmists.

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 1:14 pm

I’m not going to get into an argument with you over some studies, tjl. That’s a waste of time.

The evidence in this case is that they’ve been over-hyping the data. As has been pointed out above, even Al Gore acknowledged that they’ve been using fear and exaggeration to get people to “believe.”

….I would say that’s not just a couple of people with a theory. Your ignorance is showing my friend. And you don’t wear it well! Thanks for providing further proof.

Yes it is a “theory.” It is not a “fact.” If you don’t understand the difference, look it up… I can’t be expected to do everything for you… and this is stuff some school should have taught you, probably around the time you took Biology class.

And I will continue to “wear my ignorance,” if that ignorance means I don’t subscribe to the blind following of anything and everything Al Gore has to say, even when direct evidence contradicts it. You continue to ignore the actual story here… the emails stating that the data is being blow out of proportion. But I understand why… your back is against the wall, and you’ve got to say something. It’s a shame you have to resort to a childish, “Nuh-uh” denial.

Talk about the emails… show me that you can actually talk about this, not just pretend it didn’t happen.

Ha. Reading comprehension is not your thing. Fair enough. It’s something that is heightened with a college education, which I don’t want to presume, but….. Listen, all I can do is provide the facts, buddy. If you want to go with the 8% of scientists who don’t believe in the “theory” of global warming – go ahead, you rebel you. Right, but I’m following Al Gore blindly. He is the only one who subscribes to this “theory.” Sure thing. You have no evidence to contradict it. Please, provide something other than hacked emails. I know you don’t “get” science, but some of your cronies out there must understand science.

And OF COURSE you won’t get into an argument about the studies. You clearly have no leg to stand on. How about I respond to your comment with — I’m not going to discuss the emails with you. That’s a waste of my time. You’re a bright fella. My back is not against the wall? Oh no! …. By a lesser man? Never.

“Nuh-uh” denial? Show me where I just said “nuh-uh.” Didn’t I just give you some numbers? Wow. I can see I am the one wasting my time here. Thanks for playing along. And I still submit that you are completely ignorant — but what do I know, I’m a liberal elite. But, one person’s trash is another man’s treasure. Thanks for providing me with some of that treasure. I will go on enjoying the rest of my day knowing that you’re out there. Haha.

TJL, feel free to gargle Al Gore’s semen and continue saving the world. When you’re old enough to understand you’ve been used, he’ll still be counting all the billions he made with the scam of the century: carbon offsets.

Actually, global warming is a hypothesis.. no more proven than global cooling. That’s why the largest tax in US history is absurd to think of concerning this.. why are they rushing it then?

@straitshooter — my point exactly. Stay classy, you conservatives. Hey and what about the hundreds of millions those charlatans (look it up) like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made off of those talking points they’ve got the uneducated class to repeat. It’s cute.

TJL, so your argument is that Al Gore is no different than Beck and Limbaugh? They are all out to make money for themselves, and everyone else can go to hell? If Gore would simply admit that, he would be my hero.

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm

It’s something that is heightened with a college education, which I don’t want to presume,

My diploma hangs proudly on the wall, thank you very much. A well respected, well known, university in a city once voted “Most Enlightened,” my “Mother Jones.” Yes, I know… only “smart” people think like you do… but try to remember (and this will be tough), that’s just your ego talking. Once you learn how to tamp that down, you can work on becoming a productive and respectful member of society.

You have no evidence to contradict it. Please, provide something other than hacked emails.

Why do I have to provide something other than these hacked emails? Don’t they do just what you’re asking for? Why don’t you want to talk about them?

How about I respond to your comment with — I’m not going to discuss the emails with you. That’s a waste of my time.

Why is it a waste of your time? Because you can’t respond to it… that’s why. You are up against the wall, or you’d have something to say… which you don’t. Don’t worry, wait a few weeks, I’m sure Gore and the like will give you something you can copy/paste in. I know thinking on your own isn’t your strong suit.

“Nuh-uh” denial? Show me where I just said “nuh-uh.”

I demonstrated how you used the, “Nuh-uh” denial IN YOUR FIRST POST! And you tell me I’ve got a problem with, “reading comprehension!” Wow! Here’s a hint… scroll up!

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Hey and what about the hundreds of millions those charlatans (look it up) like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made off of those talking points they’ve got the uneducated class to repeat.

So what you’re saying is, “Sure I’m regurgitating stuff that the left-wing guys told me, but people on the right do it too…” And that’s supposed to make you look better, or more correct, how? Ah yes, another double standard… look THAT up!

Again, what temperature is the planet supposed to be?
How can you tell it’s too hot if you don’t know what the proper temperature is?

ImNotBlue: I am better than you. Look how riled up I got you. Game…. set… match.

tjl: You’re a smart guy, or so you tell us. What do you think Al Gore meant when he said he engaged in “an over-representation of factual presentations”?

tjl wrote: ImNotBlue: I am better than you. Look how riled up I got you. Game…. set… match.

“Look how riled up I got you”? Yeah, it took a college graduate to write that sentence.

Zakk: here is an interesting read on it — http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/

It has more answers not as to not what the temperature “should” be, but how the temperature has fluctuated (at a 5-year running mean) since 1880.

LSMithee: welcome to the den, my friend. I’m not sure what you mean by “it took a college graduate to write that sentence,” but if you’d like me to phrase it more eloquently (in college speak, I presume) I’ll give my best college-try: Look how overwrought you have become at my expense… I’m not sure how you want me to phrase it. Just let me know next time. Hey, cool avatar, by the way. Can you make me one?

Thankfully, a real breakthrough of the media stonewall on Climate gate. Thank you; although I laugh at your conclusions in this article and claim that Krugman is the expert so we can forget about the topic from here on out. Truth be known:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years…

Says it all; it’s a fraud. Furthermore, the BBC got these emails (leaked to them?) in mid October and sat on the story; sat on the story; spiked it, hid it from the public, pretended they never saw the emails. So not only is this a scientific scandal, but a media scandal as well.

Cancel Copenhagen.

UPEN is now investigating their key scientist Mann for his participation in this fiasco and I would bet that Beck goes after Obama’s “climate czar” (Obama does have one of those doesn’t he?)

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm

ImNotBlue: I am better than you. Look how riled up I got you. Game…. set… match.

I wrote my post while eating some Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup (it’s rainy out, good on a rainy day)… exactly how “riled up,” do you think I am?

Either way, is that you’re intention? Here I am trying to have a discussion, and you’re just attempting to annoy? Hmmm… you really are as much of a child as I thought you were.

(PS- I’m not listening to some AC/DC, and sucking on a Werthers… you let me know if I’m riled yet.)

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 4:10 pm

My favorite paragraph:

In 1967 Hansen went to work for NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York City, where he continued his research on planetary problems. Around 1970, some scientists suspected Earth was entering a period of global cooling. Decades prior, the brilliant Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch had explained how our world warms and cools on roughly 100,000-year cycles due to its slowly changing position relative to the Sun. Milankovitch’s theory suggested Earth should be just beginning to head into its next ice age cycle. The surface temperature data gathered by Mitchell seemed to agree; the record showed that Earth experienced a period of cooling (by about 0.3°C) from 1940 through 1970. Of course, Mitchell was only collecting data over a fraction of the Northern Hemisphere — from 20 to 90 degrees North latitude. Still, the result drew public attention and a number of speculative articles about Earth’s coming ice age appeared in newspapers and magazines.

Ah… the similarities.

We’ve also had a series of scienticians over the decades declare we would run out of oil sometime in the mid 70s, the world’s population would max out by 1980 and we would all stave to death, and the oceans were set to die sometime by 1990, and take us with them. They are bound to be correct one of these times.

“It has more answers not as to not what the temperature “should” be, but how the temperature has fluctuated (at a 5-year running mean) since 1880.”

Still supports my theory that no one knows what temp the planet should be so this entire discussion is BS. If you can’t prove to me that the planet isn’t just running it’s cycle then why should I beleive that it’s heating or cooling?

ImNot: I was going to stop posting, but you’re making this too easy on me. Again, it’s called reading comprehension… Read on with me, if you will….

But other scientists forecasted global warming. Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko had also observed the three-decade cooling trend. Nevertheless, he published a paper in 1967 in which he predicted the cooling would soon switch to warming due to rising human emissions of carbon dioxide. Budyko’s paper and another paper published in 1975 by Veerabhadran Ramanathan caught Hansen’s attention. Ramanathan pointed out that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) are particularly potent greenhouse gases, with as much as 200 times the heat-retaining capacity of carbon dioxide. Because people were adding CFCs to the lower atmosphere at an increasing rate, Ramanathan expressed concern that these new gases would eventually add to Earth’s greenhouse effect and cause our world to warm. (Because CFCs also erode Earth’s protective ozone layer, their use was mostly abolished in 1989 with the signing of the Montreal Protocol.)

… Ha. Reading is FUN! It was only the next paragraph down. There are even pretty graphs for you to look at. They explain what all those words are about.

The child abides…

Zaak: I need to prove nothing to you. The science is proving it. I’m not a scientist. Those who are have shown it IS heating. Again, re-read the article. It’s from NASA, not a liberal elitist blog. Why is it not worth having the discussion when the science shows it to be heating. Should we just not talk about these things?

Does this help?

“If we follow a ‘business-as-usual’ course, Hansen predicts, then at the end of the twenty-first century we will find a planet that is 2-3°C warmer than today, which is a temperature Earth hasn’t experienced since the middle Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when sea level was roughly 25 meters higher than it is today.”

Again, read it. Your answers are there.

tjl, it does make me happy to know people like you are being shown for what you really are. Anyone with common sense is coming to the conclusion that listening to people like you is a very bad idea.

tjl:

“The science is proving it”

Yes, believe the forged science! The (forged) truth can only set you free!

Hahaha. This is fantastic!

tjl says:
November 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Uh-huh… read that part too. That seems to suggest that scientists don’t really know what’s going on. There are a lot of theories out there, but we’ve had people “believe” from both sides of the spectrum. See… folks used to believe it was “cooling,” now they believe “warming” (well, actually, they’ve dropped ‘warming’ and made it ‘climate change’ because they realized the folks weren’t buying it)… so who’s right? I suppose it depends on what is most convenient to believe at the moment. Perhaps in 10 years, they’ll say cooling again, and reference the older folks as some sort of “evidence” that we knew about this all along.

Anyway… you STILL have not address the issue of the emails. Why must you pretend like they didn’t happen? Who are you trying to fool?

Paul Krugamn has no issues with doctoring data, withholding evidence, manipulating peer review processes, and destroying the paper trail. I suggest everyone keep this in mind when they read Krugman’s articles on economics.

“Zaak: I need to prove nothing to you. The science is proving it.” actually, yes you do. The science has now been proven to be tampered with. Therefore the burden of proof is squarely placed on you.

tjl wrote:

Reading is FUN!

Unless it’s you doing the reading of my question to you at 4:05 pm.

Seems to me you are like your hero the Goreacle: He picks and chooses the questions he will answer, dismissing the tough ones (with his trademark deep sigh) as being asked by dishonest, ignorant people unworthy of a response. When finally he has the questions he doesn’t want to answer put to him, he filibusters on minor, irrelevent points to chew up the allotted time.

Unfortunately for you, there is no time limit on the Internet (Gore missed that detail when he invented it, darn the luck). So, let me try again: What , tjl, do you think Al Gore meant when he said he engaged in “an over-representation of factual presentations”?

Nothing is served by my making a comment, but…

Somebody leaked a select group of emails from a select group of scientists.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate a global conspiracy between all scientists, everywhere and most of the scientists that I know (and I spent the last six years in one of our epicenters of research, so I know a lot of scientists), but most of them are regular people and some have fewer communication skills than others.

I learned about these emails and their contents from the media, as I assume everyone else did because I don’t think any of us hacked into the university’s system. Perhaps some outlets gave more play to the emails than others, but we all learned about them from the media and this post is about a televised exchange between a columnist from the Washington Post and another from the New York Times.

I know that I personally wish some things were covered more than others, but that’s why we’ve evolved into having so many outlets. We all can get the news, we choose.

And, no matter where you come down on the validity of the emails;
What’s so bad about trying to clean-up the planet?

Perhaps you disagree with the Bush-era compromise of cap and trade, but there’s people on both sides of the environmental movement who have questions about that approach. Maybe you disagree with the method and perhaps you have questions about the theory, but at the end of the day, I hope no one’s in favor of increasing pollution and keeping the place clean for the next generation seems like a noble goal.

Well Magister, the problem is the emails eminate from a vaunted source in the climate debate, a source most ther scientists haveurned towards for info in the debate. They have been fudging data for years and preventing dissenting opinions from entering said debate, so they have been massaging the message for some time, as well as thwarting attempts to have research and data released.

The follow-up is not an arguement about whether we can pollute or not, it is about turning over massive amounts of our country, economy and liberty to a group based on false premises. If we sign on to the global treaties it would preclude our own Constitution in areas, and then we would be subject to judgement of nations who have shown a hostility towards our society. All over a fraud.

>I don’t know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

This is why this whole “climategate” crap is complete bullshit of the highest order. None of these leaked emails prove jack squat.

If you want to disprove climate change – read scientific journals such as Nature and Science and reproduce all of the tests in the articles which prove global warming. Scientific papers all must clearly detail the methodology used in order to achieve the results published and concluded.

But we all know that’s not going to happen, since if that was the case someone would’ve done that by now. It’s not elitist to make the claim those who think “climategate” disproves global warming are complete scientific illiterates. If they were in charge of science (thank god for not), we’d all still be burning witches.

> They have been fudging data for years and preventing dissenting opinions from entering said debate

Wow. I’m completely dumbfounded. Do you even have any slightest of an idea how the modern scientific process works?

Magister says:
November 30, 2009 at 6:24 pm

And, no matter where you come down on the validity of the emails;
What’s so bad about trying to clean-up the planet?

Now this is important. Nobody is suggesting that we shouldn’t clean up the planet… however, there are a number of groups trying to profit off of people’s desire to help out, and it’s just one big scam.

For example… at the network where I work, we do a college sports program, and recently on the program the host interviewed a member of the student body. This girl was the leader of a “green initiative” at one of the tailgating events, and proudly boasted that last week they had a 100% carbon neutral tailgate. How did they accomplish this? Why, they raised money and bought carbon offsets, to “neutralize” the tailgate!

Bullsh*t.

Carbon offsets are a scam, and they don’t help improve the environment at all. There are no standards or science behind how much “carbon” someone or something produces… there are no monetary standards over how much one “carbon” costs, or how much an offset should be… there’s not even any oversight of the groups selling the offsets, to make sure that they’re doing anything other than pocketing the money! Al Gore saw the potential to exploit naïve people who want to help the environment… and is the owner of a company which sells these offsets. So, look t the chain of events… Gore becomes part of a carbon offset selling company… Gore creates movie and encourages people to buy offsets… Gore gets filthy stinkin’ rich selling offsets. And the best part about offsets, is that you need to manufacture NOTHING! There are no costs… just “imagination.”

So, back to the original point… cleaning up the Earth is good. Scamming people through a fear campaign, is bad. If you really want to help out, turn down the heat or air conditioning, try walking around instead of driving, and plant a tree or two… but don’t let the fear mongers and convince you that by spending money for nothing, you’re helping anything other than their wallets.

There is a very eye opening, and refreshing, interview here- Michael Duffy interviewed

Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Expert reviewer for the the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities

I think he’ll now at least as much as Krugman about what scientists’ chit chat looks like.

The interviewer tells Kellow that Gavin Schmidt (of Real Climate) has explained there isn’t really anything problematic here, this is just how real scientists behave in private, it’s just normal conversation.

Kellow says that this is not how anybody he knows in the scientific community behaves and interacts, at least not in front of him, and it’s not how they should behave, but that this behavior isn’t the biggest problem. The emails and data, he says, include computer code they used to “manipulate the raw data and I’m afraid that they indicate modes of operation that should be anathema to any decent scientist.”

He also says that this leak reveals a situation far worse than what could be expected- it’s evidence of a quite clear willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, a resistance of any notion of transparency, with active resistance of FOI requests, quite reasonable requests, subverting peer review, pressuring editors to reject dissident views, and these lead authors of the IPCC report talking about keeping peer reviewed literature science out of the report and making sure it doesn’t make its way into summaries for policy makers which is all the politicians read- it’s serious stuff, Kellow stresses. He sounds both shocked and disgusted.

Furthermore, the reporter himself admits that in spite of Gavin Schmidt’s assurances to the contrary, he was shocked by the emails, particularly one where the ‘team’ suggest freezing out a scientist and editor they dislike and view as a denier. Kellow agrees and says, his voice dripping with disdain, that calling those who disagree with this group ‘deniers is “a cheap rhetorical attempt to link him to the holocaust” and that skeptic is a word that ALL scientists should wear with honour.

There is no evidence of conspiracy, says Schmidt, but the reporter says when he reads the emails he sees that there was discussion between American and British scientists on how to frustrate legal FOIA requests to the point of suggesting destroying documents. That sure looks like conspiracy to me, and Kellow is also concerned about this.

Kellow says ‘this bunch seems to think they were above’ the usual restrictions the rest of academia abide by.

Kellow refers again to the “resistance to quite reasonable FOI requests to the data” and says it’s possible this caused a whistle blower leak.

He believes the earth is probably warming, but says the ability to rely on the data we’ve had up until now has been seriously undermined.

So I think rather than ‘slamming’ anybody, Krugman revealed that sure, this is how academics and scientists who have sold out for political activism talk amongst either other, but I am not convinced this is how scientists who still cherish the scientific method communicate and behave.

@MartiniShark: I really don’t want to get into a debate about global warming in this forum, primarily because I don’t care enough about the concept, but also because I’d prefer to treat this as a media site.

But with that caveat in place…

I couldn’t tell you how many times “global warming”, environmental damage and pollution in general has come up in casual conversation with scientists from a variety of disciplines and it was usually in the context of their research. Sometimes it may have been “I’ve read x”, but most of the time, it was “I discovered y” and when we got to their hypothesis, it would often come back to something environmental. (if applicable)

Because of the demographics of my previous community, most people in my peer group were scientists of one form or another — some were famous in their fields, some had won awards and a surprising number had security clearances — but because of the local demographics, I was often the only non-scientist on a board or committee.

My primary complaint and I actually voiced it from time to time is that it’d take them forever to make a decision, we had to over-research every question and every solution, then come back to it again in a couple of months.

IOW: Though I believe in due diligence, my experience is that scientists can take it to an extreme.

Picture this: You are shopping on Black Friday, and you endure a long line to get to the checkout counter to save 30 to 60% on things you’ve been saving all year to purchase. When you are checked out, you think you may have overpaid for your items, so you check your receipt, and sure enough, some items were scanned at a higher price than they were advertised.

You go to the customer service desk, calmly explain that you were charged more than you should have been, and the smug response from the store’s employee is: “You obviously don’t understand the way a scanner works.”

Chances are, you don’t know how it works, but you know darn well what it’s supposed to do: Charge the advertised price — no more, no less. And if the retailer uses the technology to take money out of your pocket they aren’t entitled to and refuses to make you whole, you can sue them … for fraud.

Imagine that you file a suit against a retailer for scanner fraud, and discover documents from the company’s executives detailing how they can program UPC codes to charge you more money than they are telling you. Their defense: “It’s more complicated than you make it sound.” Or, “Don’t worry about it. It’s not a lot of money. You’ll never miss it.”

You wouldn’t accept that for an answer, would you?

@ImNotBlue: I’ve never bought a carbon offset and wouldn’t know how to go about it, but if anyone ever suggests it, I’ll keep your thoughts in mind.

@m

Please educate me on the scientific process – please. Because manipulating research, stonewalling requests to release data, and restricting information that contradicts the party-line is apparently a scientific standard that we have not been taught. If this is such a slam-dunk why all the subterfuge?

Oh wait, you called it the “modern” scientific method. Now I get it.

@Magister

That brings up my original point, which was the media trying to find ways not to report the story. There is enough coming out of the email dump to make any curious news outlet busy for weeks, but instead they are choosing to measure the importance of reporting on it. This thread at the least proves there is ample material for some content to be reported. It is almost as if they do not wish to raise a debate in a subject they have decreed to be settled.

>You wouldn’t accept that for an answer, would you?

Sorry, but that’s a terrible, terrible analogy. In fact, it serves as a pretty good example why the general idea of using analogies is terrible. It oversimplifies scenarios and grossly deforms an issue to a comparative perspective.

People’s lack of understanding of the scientific method and how science research is studied, researched, published and scrutinized cannot be summarized down into an analogy of bar code scanner. The only thing your analogy proves is that people just don’t know anything about how science is established.

>Chances are, you don’t know how it works, but you know darn well what it’s supposed to do

It doesn’t matter how much you believe you do, it clearly is that you simply don’t. I’m not sure if you have – but if you’ve never read or opened up a scientific journal in your entire life, it is pretty safe to make the claim that you probably don’t know how modern science works.

@MartiniShark: But some aspects of the media have been looking at the emails. Maybe you’d prefer for a crack investigative team or the 60 Minutes treatment, but right now, there’s obviously somebody looking into them and what they are finding is being reported.

>Oh wait, you called it the “modern” scientific method. Now I get it.

I actually slapped my palm against my forehead when I read your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It doesn’t matter what goes on within a bunch of scientists email exchanges. It doesn’t matter if there’s a reluctance to share all data. It doesn’t matter if people like you take conversations, quotes and words completely out of context and shoe-horn it into a two-dimensional ideological context.

If something has been published in the journals Nature or Science, you better damn well believe it’s empirical. If you don’t – then feel free to recreate the research yourself because they give you the exact explanation and methodology on how they got their results.

If global warming is false and all scientists fake their data, then it would’ve been caught by now. Anyone can reproduce and double-check all data and results published in scientific journals. You can do it. I can do it. Anyone can. Yet decade after decade, the evidence and science keeps piling on proving global warming. I’d say its rather impossible for there to be any one single golden nugget that overturns all past science. Any quote in this “scandal” won’t do or affect jack squat.

There are thousands and thousands of scientific articles that prove global warming, so there’s plenty for you to go through if you want to disprove this “conspiracy”. You can reproduce every single one of them in order to find flaws – though that’s something which without a doubt has been done already thousand times over, since before publishing in journals there usually is a rigorous process where the researchers have to defend their work by letting other anonymous scientists go through it first. But, once again – buy yourself a lab coat and get cookin’

This has been a fascinating discussion I’ve followed all day.

From a media critique perspective I believe we’re witnessing the results of constantly presenting any number of issues as “he said, she said”.

The very fact that around half the country (and more than that here apparently) either think global warming isn’t happening, we’re not causing it, and/or there’s nothing we can do about it, is simply amazing to me.

The very week it’s determined (by a lying satellite) permanent sea ice is declining and that other climate models have actually underestimated in various ways the harmful impact of CO2 emissions, we’re arguing about evil socialist liberals deliberately perpetuating a hoax to steal innocent capitalist’s hard earned dollars.

If there were 99.5% of scientists claiming this is real and a looming planetary disaster, that wouldn’t be high enough to satisfy those hostile to the mere concept; either due to ideology, anti-science bias, or pro-selfish keep your grubby paws off my money types.

The media has only itself to blame. Its their “they say this but these guys say that” narrative that’s to blame, aimed as much at protecting themselves from the forty-year-old bought and paid for conservative media Wurlitzer coming down on them, as it is to inform the public of the facts.

We’ve essentially become ungovernable as a society at this point, with one side meekly attempting milquetoast solutions to massive problems so as not to offend their corporate campaign contributors, while the other side (also in someone’s pocket) either denies the problem exists or we need more of what caused it, or it’s not only untrue but also a communist plot to kill grandma.

Maybe if we escalate a war that will appease the right?

Magister says:
November 30, 2009 at 7:44 pm

There was a really great episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t (Showtime, I think), which talked about carbon offsets.

At one point they stood in a parking lot, and asked people if they wanted to “help save the planet.” The majority of people were more than willing to fork over a few dollars to buy some offsets, “based” upon what they had just bought. They never asked to know how much “carbon” they really use, or the evidence behind it… they never asked where the money was going, or how it would help the planet… but it made them “feel” like they were doing something… and it only cost a few bucks. S-C-A-M.

It was very interesting… you can find it online if you do a little Googling.

That all makes sense except for one niggling detail – most of the data being forwarded is coming out of the IPCC, governed by the UN. That means there is all sorts of idealogical pressure guiding the research, not neutral scientific methds. Believe it or not, the UN wants there to be warming verifyable so they will ultimately wield the power.

This has led to things like Michael Mann’s now discredited findings for the IPCC, which everyone has cited for many years. There SHOULD have been numerous scientists overlooking his data but then it was determined that was not the case. It took a Canadian business who challenged the results for years to ultimately determine Mann’s computer program was flawed, but no one had determined such in his own circles. This research was behind the now dismissed “hockey-stick” graph.

If you really want to find scientific agreement it is in the study of global climate oscillations since the last ice age, over the past 1,500 or so years. We are coming off a mini-ice age which ended in the mid-1800s, and that is also the starting point of most contemporary climate graphs showing warming.

It doesn’t matter what goes on within a bunch of scientists email exchanges

It does matter when those email exchanges include discussions of how to break the law and avoid complying with legal FOIA requests, including a request to delete any discussions of a particular paper two days after a FOIA request was filed for that information..
It does matter when those exchanges include scientists privately admitting what they publicly deny.
It does matter when those exchanges include discussions on how to respond to somebody questioning their work and the recommended responses make it clear it does not matter whether the challenge to the work is legitimate or accurate or not, and include statements like Trenberth’s suggestions for using propaganda and logical fallacies rather than real information to deal with those who bring legitimate criticism of their work. In this instance, Tom W. rebuffed Jones et al and acknowledged that the criticism brought by Keenan was legitimate, the scientist in question, Wang, had made statements he must have known to be false at the time he made them. Jones, Mann, and Trenberth did not care about the accuracy, of the claim. Trenberth said:

“… the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do. How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!” There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan’s message. One may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it claimed something that indeed was not so
But some old instrumental data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the metadata do not exist. It doesn’t mean they are worthless and can not be used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial manner will undermine his case.. ”

Notice, by the way, that here is yet another admission that the original data is gone (there are many such admissions in the files, you might read them).

It’s interesting to see how successful has been Trenberth’s advice to ignore any merits of any challenges and simply, again to quote him, “Cast aspersions on their motives.” How well the AGW alcolytes have imbibed at this fountain of malice. Because casting aspersions against their character and undermining the case through dishonest rhetoric is plainly vastly more important than good science and honest data.

It doesn’t matter if there’s a reluctance to share all data. It doesn’t matter if people like you take conversations, quotes and words completely out of context and shoe-horn it into a two-dimensional ideological context.

That’s where you’re clearly, undeniably, wrong. It matters immensely. Science is all about make it possible for others to replicate your work, and if you withhold data, you make it impossible for that process to happen. Then what you are doing is not science, it is merely opinions.

There is plenty of ugly material in those emails it’s just a lie to say the only reason to see that is for ‘people like you’ to take them ‘out of context and shoehorn’ them. George Monbiot, a true believer if there ever was one, is more honest than you and he admits that the material in these documents is deeply troubling and Phil Jones ought to resign.
Again, Professor Aynsley Kellow, who was an expert reviewer for the the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities, says these documents are deeply troubling and reveal behavior and attitudes that ought to be ‘anathema’ to any real scientist. He says he’s looked at the code and they were manipulating data to get desired results, and he’s read the emails and they were clearly suborning the peer review process and blatantly (and illegally) disregarding reasonable and lawful FOIA requests.

These things may not matter to you. They do to most other people.

It’s not just the e-mails, it’s the data they’ve faked or outright discarded, the hopeless software they used, and the thug tactics they employed against their critics. This is not going away no matter how hard you wish.

>most of the data being forwarded is coming out of the IPCC, governed by the UN. That means there is all sorts of idealogical pressure guiding the research, not neutral scientific methds. Believe it or not, the UN wants there to be warming verifyable so they will ultimately wield the power.

That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read on the internet. The IPCC is a project reflecting the current state of science. They don’t do science.

And you know what the greatest criticism of the IPCC is? That they’re too conservative. They underestimate everything just to appease deniers like you who take part in constructing the IPCC report.

You think the IPCC is a step towards the UN grabbing world power? Alex Jones, welcome to Mediaite. I think you’ve met Bob Lazar before, right?

“And you know what the greatest criticism of the IPCC is? That they’re too conservative.”

That is only because you still want to ignore the email scandal. I never said they “Do science”, they are massaging the data and the research. They actively sought to discredit any publication that printed contradictory data. The IPCC takes in scientific research and they filter the data, accepting those figures they approve and dismissing those which do not and discrediting the data published in opposing publications. These are some of the actions of the IPCC and CRU at the heart of the scandal that you continue to ignore.

The upcoming conference Obama is attending is about subjugating governments under environmental policies, headed by the UN, which relies directly and only upon the research forwarded by their IPCC.