No, they were investigated SIX times by completely different bodies with nothing coming out of it.
Of course the conspiracy loon would say that that proves that all six bodies are in on the conspiracy...
I'll reiterate. The emails were not debunked. They were totally legitimate. They were investigated and deemed not to have confirmed fraudulent behaviour or to have delegitimized the science to which they referenced. The investigations did acknowledge that the emails were not necessarily professional in nature. Smoke but no fire, in essence.
These emails are new, but drawn from the same source. It will be interesting to see if they lend credence to the results of the previous investigations or if they indicate a trend from mere unprofessionalism to fraudulent actions or intentions. Here's an idea of what's to come:
Of course, I never said the emails weren't real, creating that amount of fake data would be.. perverse.
Of course James Taylor would write that, he works for the Heartland Institute. The book Merchants of Doubt talks about the Heartland Institute, I wouldn't call their position or process scientific.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So there has been no degradation in arctic sea ice in the last four years. If anything, it looks like arctic sea ice is starting to expand.
Sure, at a superficial level. But you have to ask why 2007 was as low as it was. 2011 being that low may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the answer to that question.
Lets stop knocking down this strawman so we can move on to the real argument....shall we? Global warming is/has/will happening/happened/happen. < --- Is not the argument.
Considering that these e-mails confirm that these "experts"/ "top scientists" aren't too sure how much humans are the cause. (This is not even considering the lack of professionalism/activism of the IPCC and these individuals)
1. How much are humans contributing to GW and how much is it natural fluctuation?
2. If humans are contributing when did this start?
Last edited by HOZ; 11-24-2011 at 08:28 PM.
Reason: Had to add more so people don't willfully take anything out of context
My Supervisor did his PHD under the fellers under question with the whole Climategate thing. He is a very good scientist in the sense that he can view things objectively. But I still feel he has a little bias when defending them. He did make one good point though.
Say you had access to two years worth of emails. And you went through these emails with the intent of looking for incriminating evidence, I think that based on the emails as a whole, you could find a number of different series that would look bad to outside eyes. My supervisor himself admits the fact that if someone was to grab two days worth of a conversation that had been on going for a month, well hell that could look pretty bad. All the way from joking (?) death threats about someone who cut your funding with a colleague to hey lets try this, then the reply being No we can't because of this.. well maybe that reply never gets posted included in this "series".
But if you actually take a step back and look at the picture as a whole, things make a lot more sense. In other words, you look at it objectively.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
My Supervisor did his PHD under the fellers under question with the whole Climategate thing. He is a very good scientist in the sense that he can view things objectively. But I still feel he has a little bias when defending them. He did make one good point though.
Say you had access to two years worth of emails. And you went through these emails with the intent of looking for incriminating evidence, I think that based on the emails as a whole, you could find a number of different series that would look bad to outside eyes. My supervisor himself admits the fact that if someone was to grab two days worth of a conversation that had been on going for a month, well hell that could look pretty bad. All the way from joking (?) death threats about someone who cut your funding with a colleague to hey lets try this, then the reply being No we can't because of this.. well maybe that reply never gets posted included in this "series".
But if you actually take a step back and look at the picture as a whole, things make a lot more sense. In other words, you look at it objectively.
A response I would expect. However, the joys of email threads are the ability to capture the whole conversation and there are alot of those types of emails posted and available. And they contain context and aren't little snippets from a single email.
Ya and the sun will rise tomorrow, like I said, people can interpret things anyway they choose.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern For This Useful Post:
I won't get into the climate debate, but I have often wondered what would happen if we do commit to the CO2 reduction plans that every country continues to promise to meet. As a thought experiment, I like to picture them being too successful and in the distant future humanity is faced with the threat of a dangerously cooler Earth. Will we bring out the old internal combustion engines again to help pump out greenhouse gasses? Will there be a an ad campaign asking people to take extra trips when driving, maybe even shaming people who take the bus?
I won't get into the climate debate, but I have often wondered what would happen if we do commit to the CO2 reduction plans that every country continues to promise to meet. As a thought experiment, I like to picture them being too successful and in the distant future humanity is faced with the threat of a dangerously cooler Earth. Will we bring out the old internal combustion engines again to help pump out greenhouse gasses? Will there be a an ad campaign asking people to take extra trips when driving, maybe even shaming people who take the bus?
The way I see it is that we have two different processes affecting climate: natural and human-caused. The natural processes can make it warmer or cooler; at this point the human-caused processes are basically limited to making it warmer (short of some really exotic and in my opinion potentially risky ideas). Then there are 3 options humanity has - leave climate as close to "natural" as possible, keep climate as close to current conditions as possible (which is not the same thing), or somehow optimizing our climate. There is a fourth option, of course - letting things get completely unbalanced and out of control by unrestrained human-caused warming, but I don't recommend it.
Presuming the choice was not to leave climate "natural", I think causing additional warming would not be hard if global temperatures started to get too low. The trick is doing the right amount of warming in that case. Realistically we aren't going to totally eliminate human sources of warming in the near future so it's not really an issue at this time though; the focus right now needs to be on making sure we don't over-warm.
1. How much are humans contributing to GW and how much is it natural fluctuation?
2. If humans are contributing when did this start?
I think another point that needs sorting is "does the sun's radiation fluctuate enough to cause disruption in our data?". An assumed constant is how much the sun ouputs, which has been explored with the theory of sunspot tracking.
Solar output isn't an assumed constant, it's measured directly or indirectly.
I remember this graph from before...there was a huge debate about how much smoothing was used as the 2000s should have been much cooler if it had a huge effect.
How do they correct for it though? You'd have to start with an assumption of how much it'd affect the earth's temperature then.
How much it affects the earth's temperature is pretty straight forward when you're dealing with that level of things... total energy in minus energy reflected / emitted back out, there's nowhere else for it to go.
How it affects the temperature of the atmosphere or the ocean is far more complex because there are many factors that contribute to that.
But there are many papers that support the sun's contribution to current warming being small to minimal:
Well it looks like Canada is going to withdrawl from Kyoto treaty completely by the end of the year. This should save us over 6.7 billion in coming years. I'm glad Harper isn't bending to international peer pressure. If they want carbon emmissions brought down let them talk to China.
