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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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’

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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”?

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?

“The science is proving it”

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

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.

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…