About that email....

Comments

They were obtained illigally

They were obtained illigally so therefore they don't count.

LOL

Oh, well then it is alright!

The stolen documents do raise

The stolen documents do raise some questions, but they do little to support this wild argument that Global Warming is some sort of fraud. Nor is it a "death blow to climate science." This article is junk. In fact, its ideologues spewing crap like that which drives many scientists to be overprotective of their data and hateful of detractors to begin with.

Luckily individual scientists, or even small groups of scientists, can only have a minimal impact on conclusions drawn by the greater scientific community. The CRU is one research group. Similar research with independent data collection is happening around the world. You want to tell me that NASA is in on this conspiracy too? That isn't how science works. And what's to be gained?

Individual scientists are often quite competitive and eager to be right. But they're all well aware that being right and looking right are not the same thing. Each scientist is trying to prove every other scientist wrong, so if you "cook the books" than eventually you will be found out. This tends to make scientific fraud a relatively small issue. Five minutes of fame is rarely worth the eternity of shame which follows. And there's rarely a significant monetary reason to do so (how many billionaire climatologists do you know?).

Unfortunately there is another kind of scientific fraud going on these days and it is rampant in our society. Ideologues will take scientists' data, pick and choose small pieces of it, show it out of context, exaggerate the significance of unknowns, and draw erroneous conclusions to support their decidedly non-scientific point. This happens all the time and the public finds it very difficult to tell the difference. Such pseudo-science is extremely difficult to defend against. Ultimately it has made many scientists a little frustrated and jumpy. Hell, many of them are downright pissed off! I know I am. 

Climate science is full of unknowns. This shouldn't be surprising given that all science is full of unknowns. That's the whole point! Scientists hate it when they think they've figured everything out. The most important thing they can do is raise a new question that no one thought of before. Every question they answer usually raises two more. Science isn't about "facts"—absolutes aren't allowed—its about finding more and more reliable models of reality that tell us what is most probably true. In science, even the things that we're pretty certain about—like gravity—are still "just theories." It's hard to get to the level of a theory in science! A well tested theory becomes reliable science, which can then be safely believed by the scientific community. That is, until new evidence forces us to revise our understanding.

The revelation that these scientist don't understand everything about our climate should not be used to justify ignoring what they do understand. It is not an invitation for inaction. And don't forget that global warming isn't the only environment impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. For instance, the CO2 is also acidifying our oceans, killing coral reefs and other marine life. This is a complex issue and it isn't all black and white.

Sure it is...

When you have the vast majority of writiings (and beliefs?) on how bad CO2 is on the environment but turn a mute eye to how much of the atmosphere is made up of CO2, when you ignore the many studies that show the SUN is more in 'charge' of what our atmosphere (and weather systems) does, when there was, for example, not a single movie talking about the 'dangers' METHANE gas is to our atmosphere (methane is a far more damaging gas than CO2). Nope, IF CO2 erradication was REALLY seen as the villian, why isn't there a worldwide prohibition on FIREPLACES? On CAMPFIRES? Which would make ME believe in THEIR beliefs more, that they would go so far as to REQUIRE people to STOP BURING STUFF.

I could be wrong, but it seeems to me that if something is bad, all of it is bad and should therefore be prohibited in all places, wouldn't you agree? I don't have a fireplace nor do I like camping. I perfer to bundle up when it is cold (PG&E is getting too expensive these days). Call me crazy, but when it was found that DDT was bad to use for the environment, wasn't it banned worldwide? Oh yeah, the WHO lifted that ban for use in the home, in spray form (like a can of Raid) on mosquitos! Oh, I guess those scientists were either wrong or greedy, which do you suppose it was?

Don't worry. You ARE wrong.

methane is a far more damaging gas than CO2

Perhaps, but one concern does not negate the other. Methane being bad doesn't mean that CO2 isn't also bad. And many environmentalists are concerned about methane as well. As I recall, that's one of the (many) arguments against our overindulgent consumption of beef and pork in this country. It's just that as a species we tend to be bigger CO2 polluters than methane polluters, so CO2 gets all the press. There's a whole host of compounds that we spew into the atmosphere which environmentalists are trying to curb.

Nope, IF CO2 erradication was REALLY seen as the villian, why isn't there a worldwide prohibition on FIREPLACES? On CAMPFIRES? Which would make ME believe in THEIR beliefs more, that they would go so far as to REQUIRE people to STOP BURING STUFF.

Um, scientists can't even push through legislation to improve vehicle emission standards a little bit and you think they should require us to stop burning things all together? That's just ridiculous. Our laws allow people to do a great number of things that are potentially damaging to society. Some of them also prevent us from doing things that would be beneficial to society. For better or worse (and I would say worse) scientists don't make laws. Legislators make laws and very few of them are scientists (or even have respectable science educations). The bulk of our policies are driven by perceived economic issues rather than scientific realities. 

I could be wrong, but it seeems to me that if something is bad, all of it is bad and should therefore be prohibited in all places, wouldn't you agree?

I absolutely disagree! This is a complete fallacy. Too much salt is bad for my health, but if I remove all salt from my diet then my nervous system will stop functioning and I will die. A little wine is good for my heart, but if I drink too much too often then I'll become an alcoholic and destroy my liver. There are many things in life that are perfectly fine, or even beneficial, in moderation. It's about maintaining homeostases. Our environment is the same way. If we got rid of all CO2 then all the plant life would die and we would follow. Likewise, if there wasn't any greenhouse effect the the planet would get too cold and we would die. The trick is to find the right balance. At this point we are an unbalancing force.

I guess those scientists were either wrong or greedy, which do you suppose it was?

Again, you seem to be confusing scientists with policy makers. Scientists don't make policy. At best they advise policy makers, but typically policy is influenced more by the lobbying of corporations than of scientists. Some of those corporations may hire scientific researchers, but their research is motivated by profit, not furthering our understanding of the universe, so it is of dubious quality. 

I'll ask you again, what is the motivation for a group of climatologists to lie about their research? What would they possibly gain by creating a scare about global warming? When it comes to true scientists, they're greedy for the glory of figuring things out. They go where the data leads them and it doesn't matter whether they end up proving or disproving their hypothesis. Figuring out which questions to ask is far more important than what the answers are. And lying about the answers never gets you anywhere. Many scientists are also hopeful that their research might make the world a better place. It seems that that's the trap our friends at the CRU fell into. Their research showed an impending global warming problem, but some of their data, if taken out of context, could be used to sow doubt in the public, resulting in continued inaction. So they hid their raw data and strategized on how best to stifle their detractors. I can't say I agree with their methods, but I think I understand their motivations. And it doesn't change the fact that the world-wide scientific community believes global warming is a major threat to our survival and prosperity. 

Did you miss something or did I?

"Again, you seem to be confusing scientists with policy makers. Scientists don't make policy. At best they advise policy makers, but typically policy is influenced more by the lobbying of corporations than of scientists. Some of those corporations may hire scientific researchers, but their research is motivated by profit, not furthering our understanding of the universe, so it is of dubious quality. 

I'll ask you again, what is the motivation for a group of climatologists to lie about their research? What would they possibly gain by creating a scare about global warming? When it comes to true scientists, they're greedy for the glory of figuring things out."

 

Perhaps you over-looked this in the attached report-

Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”  He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century.

 

Wasn't what the IPCC findings what DRIVES policy around the world? Not other places, but THIS ONE PLACE. So yeah, I do believe that those guys are looking not to be 'true scientists' but instead to be 'popular' scientists. Othrewise, he would ENCOURAGE people to try to poke holes in his research to show that he was right all along. Or was I missing someting about scientific integrity somewhere?

 

Oh and by the way, I agree, to me ALL thing in moderation is a good thing, it is written thus and I believe it to be so, but the last thing I stand for 'easily' is being purposefully LIED to! And those environmental scientists are some of the biggest scam artists since politics was invented.

See??

Troll!

Seriously AK?

Seriously? Do you even know what a troll is?

Troll

Don''t worry about it I agree with AK 90 percent of the time and she still calls me a troll.

No, sorry

I only called you a troll when Obama won the election and you started posting non-stop anti-Obama political posts. You destroyed this site for a while, as TGIX had pre-election. When TGIX was posting non-stop political posts to get a rise out of you I called him a troll, and when you posted them to get a rise out of him I called you a troll.

Didn't ya notice nobody gets called a troll when not posting political lies?

Ya but TGIX was trolling

Ya but TGIX was trolling against everyone here. I was just giving TGIX some of his own medicine.

You may have been trying to

But everyone was sick of seeing it. So it wasn't him you were pissing off, it was EVERYONE. That was back when I stopped coming here because it was nothing but politics.

Yep

The only thing you've done on here is make up lies and spread untruths, posting political garbage to cause a scene.

I haven't posted any

I haven't posted any political garbage. I leave that up to you. I've just commented on posts that peeve me, or are about things that peeve me, which is exactly what this site is for. (You did see it's called My Pet Peeves, right?)

I haven't made up any lies or spread any untruths. I've just said things that you happen to disagree with. Last I checked, you are not the keeper of universal truth.

I have gone out of my way to avoid generalizations and personal attacks. I separate fact from opinion and make an effort to substantiate everything I say. Every comment I make represents a significant time expenditure in thought and research. You, on the other hand, have exercised no such self-control. You say whatever you feel, without checking your sources. You generalize left and right, state opinion as fact and attack anyone who thinks differently.

As I reminded you before, this site is not a right-wing blog. MPP has no point of view and welcomes all users equally. Even users who disagree with you. Calling me a troll in some misguided attempt to diminish the validity of my statements, merely shows your own ignorance. 

Anyway...

If you are awake and have an IQ greater than an EMPTY BOX OF ROCKS, then you know that the Global Warming Alarmists changed their message to CLIMATE CHANGE. I Agree with them. I wholly accept CLIMATE CHANGE, which us NORMAL people call WEATHER and SEASONS.

Perhaps you over-looked this

Perhaps you over-looked this in the attached report-

...“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” ...

No. I saw that. I just think the quote is taken out of context and misinterpreted. 

Speaking as someone who knows a little something about science communication, I can tell you that it is ridiculously hard. First of all, the science itself is insanely complex. Even scientists can have a hard time following the details of something that's out of their field of expertise. Then you also have to contend with a public that is less educated than one might hope. Especially when it comes to scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills. But the worst part is that there is a sizable group of people who actively promote pseudo-science and seed doubt in the public psyche about valid scientific research. Some of these people do it to support their religious beliefs, or other ideologies. Many are motivated by financial gain. All of them do a disservice to the pursuit of science and the betterment of our society.

I'm not saying there aren't perfectly valid questions to be raised regarding current climate research, but the vast majority of people speaking out against global warming are ideologues and industry representatives who stand to loose money if policies change. Not people engaged in the scientific process. This makes climatologists a little skittish. They don't want to make it easy for global warming skeptics, who don't actually follow the scientific method, to take their data and use it out of context in order to spread doubt. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this tact—I'd love for all data to be open to the world for study—but I do sympathize with their motivations. And refusing to share your data does not necessarily mean you're lying about your results. It may just mean you're paranoid. 

The importance of the hidden data has also largely been overstated. 95% of the data the CRU used to reach its conclusions is publicly available. The little bit they don't want to share wouldn't be enough to completely disregard all the other evidence of global warming, even if it were as damning as the anti-global warming crowd would like you to believe. And in all likelihood it isn't that bad. It may bring up some more questions that we don't have answers to, but it cant undo the data we already have.

Wasn't what the IPCC findings what DRIVES policy around the world? Not other places, but THIS ONE PLACE.

Not exactly. The IPCC is one of several institutions which influences policy, but it doesn't make policy. It competes with many other voices. Including very powerful lobbyists from the energy industry, the automobile industry and others who have significant economic motivations to quell any environmental regulations.

All of this is largely irrelevant, however, since the only people currently called into question are from the CRU, and the CRU is only one of many research groups who contribute to the IPCCs findings. The IPCCs latest assessment report  included contributions from over 130 countries. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors. The working group dealing with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments. Relying on a large scientific community like this tends to weed out any bad science and hone in on what is really the most likely scenario. So while I may not trust individual scientists, I do trust the scientific community. 

...but the last thing I stand for 'easily' is being purposefully LIED to! And those environmental scientists are some of the biggest scam artists since politics was invented.

Remember that you are reading someone's interpretation of a collection of stolen personal emails. Pieces of the emails are being taken out of context and being interpreted by people who admittedly have an axe to grind with the emails' authors. Jumping to the conclusion that the scientists are all lying and perpetrating some elaborate hoax is unwarranted and irresponsible. It's just that sort of irrational, emotional response from the public which made the scientists so bitter and paranoid to begin with.

but the vast majority of

but the vast majority of people speaking out against global warming are ideologues and industry representatives who stand to loose money if policies change. Not people engaged in the scientific process.

 

But the global warming people stand to make trillions of dollars off this also. Both sides are playing this to the hilt.

 

Remember that you are reading someone's interpretation of a collection of stolen personal emails. Pieces of the emails are being taken out of context and being interpreted by people who admittedly have an axe to grind with the emails' authors. Jumping to the conclusion that the scientists are all lying and perpetrating some elaborate hoax is unwarranted and irresponsible. It's just that sort of irrational, emotional response from the public which made the scientists so bitter and paranoid to begin with.

 

I have a problem with this argument because if that was happening then it would be easy to debunk. But again both sides are playing the blame game. Should we take care of the enviroment sure. Is the world coming to an end in 10 years no. 100 years no. One claim was that 5000 species were dying a day. So I believe it was Walter said name the 5000. The Enviro whackos and the far right wing if you take a long hard look at it agree the planet should be taken care of. Just cannot agree on how. makes little sense to me.

LOL, finally a little more sense!

You know, truthfully, had the director came out and said, immediately after the emails were stolen and posted, that 'what was said about the contents of these emails were takinig out of context, and we will now release in full, what those emails ACTUALLY said. This will show not only that what we are facing as a race in the future, but how far those skptics will go to further their own mis-guided goals.' Or something like that, instead the first thing out of his mouth was, 'Those emails were illegally obtained and those that did this should be thrown into jail'

Notice what was missing? Not a single word saying the content of the emails were false, just that they were taken illegally. Doesn't that worry anyone?

But whatever, it is what it is, and I will continue to keep an eye out on'them', whomever and where ever 'they' show up.

Oh and by the way....