Climategate

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thor

Looking back I wish it wasn't Al Gore who championed this in the states and made a movie to get his point across. Maybe if it was a conservative who did this it wouldn't have become so polarized to the left vs right on people's stance for this issue. Better yet if that documentary was done by real scientists instead of a politician. Oh well, damage done.

Real scientists have done documentaries on the subject. This subject required someone famous to get even a sniff of broadbased appeal.

Tell me that National Geographic's documentary would have gotten the distribution that "An Inconvenient Truth" did:
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/n...-the-world-dvd

The two major movies about global warming were "An Inconvenient Truth" with Al Gore and "The Eleventh Hour" with Leonardo Di Caprio. The only other one that I know of is the PBS documentary. Hosted and voiced by Alanis Morissette. Without a known name, nobody pays attention.

Even the late aforementioned Carl Sagan wouldn't have been enough star power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

I've mentioned in threads before... the only people with the power and resources to inform and motivate people towards change are people that are going to be instantly attacked for having said resources. If Al Gore didn't put his face in the movie and he just paid scientist X to discuss the issue, it wouldn't have gotten any distribution. There are plenty of documentaries BY SCIENTISTS on the subject. Only "An Inconvenient Truth" got into all the major theaters.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Real scientists have done documentaries on the subject. This subject required someone famous to get even a sniff of broadbased appeal.

Tell me that National Geographic's documentary would have gotten the distribution that "An Inconvenient Truth" did:
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/n...-the-world-dvd

The two major movies about global warming were "An Inconvenient Truth" with Al Gore and "The Eleventh Hour" with Leonardo Di Caprio. The only other one that I know of is the PBS documentary. Hosted and voiced by Alanis Morissette. Without a known name, nobody pays attention.

Even the late aforementioned Carl Sagan wouldn't have been enough star power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

I've mentioned in threads before... the only people with the power and resources to inform and motivate people towards change are people that are going to be instantly attacked for having said resources. If Al Gore didn't put his face in the movie and he just paid scientist X to discuss the issue, it wouldn't have gotten any distribution. There are plenty of documentaries BY SCIENTISTS on the subject. Only "An Inconvenient Truth" got into all the major theaters.

Oh I'm aware of all those, seen them all. My point is the difference between someone famous like Dicaprio vs Gore is massive. One's an actor, one's a famous Democrat.

Its an undeniable fact that the conservatives have loved tearing down Al Gore and have helped fuel a heated right vs left war of words. Its muddied and taken away from the real discussion on the science of it, instead its now a polarized issue that seems to cut cleanly along party lines.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thor

Its an undeniable fact that the conservatives have loved tearing down Al Gore and have helped fuel a heated right vs left war of words. Its muddied and taken away from the real discussion on the science of it, instead its now a polarized issue that seems to cut cleanly along party lines.

Not so. If we know anything about the Democrats, whatever Barack brings back for their approval, most will vote against it.

This battle was deigned "right vs left" LONG, LONG, LONG before Al Gore released his movie. Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006.

Here is Al Gore debating Rush Limbaugh in 1992:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLt9h5z8Ng

[Thor]

Its an old debate in that sense yes, but 1992 compared to the last 5-10yrs is quite different; its become one of the biggest issues worldwide with tons of coverage.

After Inconvenient Truth it added fuel to the fire because he's a democrat, just look how often he's brought up by those denying man made global warming, and is a mainstay for attacks on the right.

I'll agree on the democrats, plenty of them wouldn't vote on anything coming from Copenhagen and of course pretty much guarantee no republican will.

[Pastiche]

The inquiries into the “climategate” e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both.

The Economist, hardly the bastion of left liberal do-goodism calls out the foolish and the cynical (many of whom exist in this thread) who point to the 'Climategate' emails as anything more than trivial in the face of the veritable CANON of reputable climate science.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetech...most_commented

Further updates on the data:

Concentrations of greenhouse gas are at their highest levels ever recorded, Arctic sea ice is disappearing 40-per-cent faster than projected just two years ago, and the rate of sea level rise from warming oceans is 80-per-cent faster than predicted in 2001.
These findings appear to present an overwhelming rebuttal to recent claims by climate change skeptics that, based on allegedly stolen e-mails from researchers at England's University of East Anglia, some sort of global conspiracy is underway to fabricate evidence of climate change.

Weaver said the controversy has obscured the fact that two other independent sets of data -- both produced by researchers based in the United States -- show that, if anything, the British data is underestimating the severity of the situation.
"The denial movement don't care about facts," Weaver said. "All they want is to try and throw a bunch of stuff at the public jury hoping that something sticks and leaves an element of doubt. I think the average person recognizes this for what it is: an attempt by special interest groups to undermine the science in the lead-up to Copenhagen."

There was a period about 7,000 years ago, following the last major Ice Age, when glaciers almost disappeared, but Waite said the current rate of melting greatly exceeds the natural history of that event. "What [glaciologists] will say is that it never has retreated at this rate. The rate of ice melting far exceeds what happened at the end of the [major] ice ages."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...957/story.html

Originally Posted by TheU

it was global warming hysteria for a while in the 90's when we could see the earths temp was going up. global warming scientists back then predicted how much hotter it would get in the 2000's and how we were on a path to destruction.

then the warming stopped, with an extended cooling around the cooler.

Could not be more wrong. The levels of ignorance is just strike. The 2000s were the hottest decade on record. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics can derive this from all global climate data.

Here's a layman's explanation, hopefully it isn't too complicated:

Climate change is not weather change. The weather oscillates all the time; climate changes very slowly. Within that slow change are innumerable variations, but what counts is the underlying pattern. Today, for example, might be cooler than yesterday. So what? And 2008 was cooler on average than 2007. Why? Because a La Nina occurred in 2008, causing a temporary dip in average global temperature. (Despite La Nina, 2008 was the ninth-warmest year on record.)

The atmosphere is generally unfolding – that is, warming – much as a series of United Nations reports have suggested, each providing increasing levels of scientific assurance, although couched with the qualifications one would expect from projections.

Even Ottawa and Alberta, hardly paragons of climate-change policies, admit the science.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1391782/

[Jetsfan]

Climate change is not weather change. The weather oscillates all the time; climate changes very slowly. Within that slow change are innumerable variations, but what counts is the underlying pattern. Today, for example, might be cooler than yesterday. So what? And 2008 was cooler on average than 2007. Why? Because a La Nina occurred in 2008, causing a temporary dip in average global temperature. (Despite La Nina, 2008 was the ninth-warmest year on record.)



I love how in the 90's this was called Global Warming.

But when the globe stopped warming the scientists renamed it Climate Change to cover their backs.

[Pastiche]

Seriously, are you freaking dense? Clearly.

Did you not see the part where the last decade was the warmest on record? The globe hasn't stopped warming. It's actually hilarious that you quote a part of the section that abruptly refutes the blithe garbage you go on to type.

[peter12]

Actually the Republican Party changed the name to Climate Change because it sounded less serious than Global Warming.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually the Republican Party changed the name to Climate Change because it sounded less serious than Global Warming.

And they also edited scientists reports to soften the link from GG to warming.

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/po...mate.html?_r=1

And what happens next after Mr Cooney is exposed?

A senior White House official accused of doctoring government reports on climate change to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming has taken a job with ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company. Philip Cooney, who resigned as chief of staff of the White House council on environment quality at the weekend, will begin work at the oil giant in the autumn.

But of course it was all just coincidental timing.

A White House spokeswoman told the Associated Press his resignation was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure in the New York Times two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports issued in 2002 and 2003.
"Mr Cooney had long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...nvironment.usa

[Devils'Advocate]

Actually, we environmentalists started calling it "Climate Change" way back in 1992 when I was still deeply involved in environmental issues. It had nothing to do with "covering our backs" but rather that while most areas would experience warmer temperatures, some would actually be colder. The change is not totally uniform.

I remember being at Elizabeth May's home for a conference where someone pointed out that cold waters from the north would actually make the Grand Banks area much colder. Which is actually something that the cod would thrive in. Actually, by pushing the North Atlantic Current south, it's possible that England's rain would be more snow than rain.

Also, as NASA points out (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html ) "global warming" is not inclusive of other climate issues such as precipitation changes. So "global warming" is only the trigger for "global climate change" which is a much bigger problem.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Actually, we environmentalists started calling it "Climate Change" way back in 1992 when I was still deeply involved in environmental issues. It had nothing to do with "covering our backs" but rather that while most areas would experience warmer temperatures, some would actually be colder. The change is not totally uniform.

I remember being at Elizabeth May's home for a conference where someone pointed out that cold waters from the north would actually make the Grand Banks area much colder. Which is actually something that the cod would thrive in. Actually, by pushing the North Atlantic Current south, it's possible that England's rain would be more snow than rain.

Also, as NASA points out (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html ) "global warming" is not inclusive of other climate issues such as precipitation changes. So "global warming" is only the trigger for "global climate change" which is a much bigger problem.

And poof! goes all credibility.

[Calgaryborn]

Wow Bagor what a great find! A New York Times article saying bad things about the Bush administration. Who would have thunk? I think the only surprising thing is that you had to go back to June 2005 to find it.

So a story written in June 2005 about some government reports that were edited slightly in 2003 by a government employee whose job among other things was to go over and edit said reports is relevant how? You do realize the NYT had received all these intergovernmental memos through the Freedom of information act. They weren't withheld or deleted. None of the information was lost by a convenient accident. That said and with all of these memos open to the Times reporter the worst he could sight specifically was the addition of the adjective "significant" or "fundamental" before the word uncertainties. I'm amazed the Democrats didn't call for congressional hearings.

[zuluking]

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Concensus cooling perhaps?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

So the knowledge is nihilistic. What's the point of learning about our universe if it doesn't help us understand ourselves?

What is the point of eating pork if it doesn't get you on the plane to Pittsburgh?

Different activities have different goals. Arbitrarily asking why doing one thing has a point if it doesn't help you with an entirely different goal is purposeless and indicates lack of rigour in thought.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Concensus cooling perhaps?

That's a site created less than a month ago by some guy who works in IT. It has a list of names, only a few of which look like actual climatologists. A few names picked at random show people who are known for opposing AGW but not for actually publishing any science on it, or publishing it in non-scientific places, or writing books.

A consensus is formed through research and publication in academic journals relevant to the field, so a few scientists (most of whom are not climatologists, and some aren't even scientists!) who sign some paper doesn't mean anything to the consensus.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow Bagor what a great find! A New York Times article saying bad things about the Bush administration. Who would have thunk? I think the only surprising thing is that you had to go back to June 2005 to find it.

So a story written in June 2005 about some government reports that were edited slightly in 2003 by a government employee whose job among other things was to go over and edit said reports is relevant how? You do realize the NYT had received all these intergovernmental memos through the Freedom of information act. They weren't withheld or deleted. None of the information was lost by a convenient accident. That said and with all of these memos open to the Times reporter the worst he could sight specifically was the addition of the adjective "significant" or "fundamental" before the word uncertainties. I'm amazed the Democrats didn't call for congressional hearings.

Thanks, I thought so too.

Great example of how the government was is big oils pocket and was misrepresenting their own scientist's findings I'd say.

And suddenly "significant" or "fundamental" have no significance to the interpretation of findings but "trick" is the mother of all global conspiracies.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

That's a site created less than a month ago by some guy who works in IT. It has a list of names, only a few of which look like actual climatologists. A few names picked at random show people who are known for opposing AGW but not for actually publishing any science on it, or publishing it in non-scientific places, or writing books.

A consensus is formed through research and publication in academic journals relevant to the field, so a few scientists (most of whom are not climatologists, and some aren't even scientists!) who sign some paper doesn't mean anything to the consensus.

Aren't most sites created by IT guys? How do you know names were "picked" and that they were done so randomly? Are you certain that none of them are published? In AGW science circles, that's called "'friendly' peer review" and "consensus" is stated not gained.

Ultimately, one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data is corrupt. The science is not settled. That is fact, not fiction.

As one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data, it is safe to assume that a significant number of studies incorporating that data are rendered invalid. Does it mean the scientists that used that data are corrupt? No. Although some of them certainly seem to be. The support I have for these statements is as firmly rooted in opinion as your's are above.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Seriously, are you freaking dense? Clearly.

Did you not see the part where the last decade was the warmest on record? The globe hasn't stopped warming. It's actually hilarious that you quote a part of the section that abruptly refutes the blithe garbage you go on to type.

Nope, I'm just a regular guy who does not believe in religion, especially your climate based religion.

When you call me dense what I hear is infidel.

Its clear to me that people like you are on a crusade and you will tolerate no dissent.

All I've seen are Great Prophet Gore and Prophet Suzuki make hundreds of thousands of dollars on speaking engagements when neither has any expertise in climate science.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Aren't most sites created by IT guys?

Sure, but a site made by an organisation (like a company or a university or a institution) will have info for the organisation in the DNS record, regardless of who makes the site.

This way it makes it look like some IT guy (not a scientist) disagreed with climate change and just made a site then found a few people that agreed with him to sign on.

Which doesn't mean much, science isn't done through random websites.

Originally Posted by zuluking

How do you know names were "picked" and that they were done so randomly? Are you certain that none of them are published?

I said I picked a few names out of the list at random. I'm not going to go through a list of 150 names and vet them all. Most of them aren't climatologists.

I didn't say none of them were published, I said the ones I looked at weren't. I can say likely none of them are because as far as I know there's no published papers in relevant journals which propose an alternative to the consensus that explains all the observations.

Originally Posted by zuluking

In AGW science circles, that's called "'friendly' peer review" and "consensus" is stated not gained.

I don't know what you are saying here.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Ultimately, one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data is corrupt. The science is not settled. That is fact, not fiction.

No, that's what people like Glenn Beck want to make people think. But there is no evidence that the temperature data is corrupt. Please provide the evidence that it is. Be specific.

Originally Posted by zuluking

As one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data, it is safe to assume that a significant number of studies incorporating that data are rendered invalid. Does it mean the scientists that used that data are corrupt? No. Although some of them certainly seem to be. The support I have for these statements is as firmly rooted in opinion as your's are above.

You haven't demonstrated the data is corrupt so the rest does not follow yet. And even if the data is corrupt, as you said there are other sets of data which say the same thing, and say it's worse than this set of data does.

If you have support, then provide the support. Again be specific, hand waving doesn't mean anything.

[Bagor]

Here's an example of 500 scientists whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.or.../pdf/21977.pdf

Convincing .... Yup

Here's some comments on the list.

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University


I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scient...land-institute

Worth noting that ........

Despite these scientists voicing their outrage on being on the list on 29 April 2008, today their names remain on said list.