Climategate - Page 8

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Absolutely I have concerns as to how this will effect people.

Why do you assume that 50 people would be without a car due to a millionaire offsetting their CO2 et al. use. The reality would be that the extra credits due to offsetting from those that can afford to at a higher rate, would effectively subsidise the credits for low income earners. It's a bit like the rich paying more taxes, they pay more so that others can pay less. If they paid the same rate as the poor then the poor's rate would have to go up as the rich rate came down to amass the same amount of collected taxes. In other words 50 people would be driving vehicles that would not have otherwise been able to afford to.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

You tell me.

A search warrant is a judge signed order that permits the police to search for specific items at a specific place at a specific time. Typically, a search warrant is ordered to search people and private property in order to seize suspected contraband and/or criminal evidence. The fourth amendment of the constitution addresses the issue of search warrant rights and was designed to protect the rights of private citizens from unlawful search and seizure. As a result of fourth amendment legal interpretations, the laws governing search warrant requirements are constantly in flux. Search warrant laws indicate when a warrant is and is not required to search a person or property, how a search warrant is obtained, and the process by which a lawful search is conducted.

A search warrant is typically necessary when it intrudes on a person's privacy or private property. A place or person is considered private when that privacy is reasonably expected and socially acceptable. A search warrant is required in any situation where artificial or high-tech search methods would otherwise be employed to gain the information sought. A search warrant gives the police the right to search a particular place, at a particular time, for particular items as approved by a judge. In the following cases police may extend a search beyond the terms of a warrant: to ensure safety, to prevent the destruction of evidence, to discover more about obtained evidence, and when contraband or evidence is in plain view.

There are a number of circumstances where it is not necessary for police to obtain a search warrant. No search warrant is necessary when the owner of a property grants police permission to search a space. Cars that have been stopped lawfully can be searched without a search warrant with proper cause. A search warrant is not necessary when a search accompanies an arrest, when the search is carried out necessarily to protect the public or prevent eminent destruction of evidence, or during hot pursuit of a criminal.

When a search warrant is required to search a property, the police must present the judge with probable cause for the search in question. Probable cause is established in numerous ways. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. As long as the police act in good faith in the supervening search, the evidence and contraband seized will be held admissible in a court of law.
When the police fail to act in good faith or in compliance with search warrant terms, any resulting evidence will not be held admissible in a court of law, as established by the federal "exclusionary rule" doctrine. The federal "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine states that when an illegal search produces evidence that leads to other evidence, all evidence obtained is inadmissible. There are situations where unlawfully obtained evidence may still be held admissible in a court of law.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

So what you are saying is that these credits will be used like a giant piggy bank for people to borrow from to get newer and more efficient vehicles and appliances?

It's either that or the actual payment of money somehow just magically offsets the carbon footprint and nobody has to make any changes. The intent is enough to make the change... \

Which one is it?

Originally Posted by dmz

You lovely leftists here need to realize that if these emails are representative, these professors have seriously damaged the credibility of the peer-reviewed process. It will take decades to overcome this, and will provide fodder for every crank in the system. This simply isn't done.

Originally Posted by dmz

This is a thread about honesty; you impugned the honesty of those who are bringing this to your attention; what exactly would you call that?

Originally Posted by dmz

One of the BIG issues the Kuhn, and Polanyi address is that, inside a closed system -- of "normal science" -- truly ground shaking/paradigm breaking evidences are initially rejected, since they don't fit into how scientists believe the "world really works." The evidence has no way of fitting into the current understanding -- so it is literally useless. This has been repeated throughout scientific history.

The book triggered diverse reactions. Most "hard" scientists shrugged and went about their business. But many in the soft, or social, sciences "loved" the book, Kuhn says, perhaps because it offered hope that they could attain the same level of legitimacy (or illegitimacy) as physicists or chemists. "Some of them even said, 'Wow, now all we have to do is figure what our paradigm is and enforce it,'" Kuhn explains.

Originally Posted by dmz

That sounds like overwrought reaching, and an attempt at moral equivalency.

You clearly and plainly asserted that I and others here are liars. Since this is not the case, I'm left to wonder where the source of this assertion comes from, and am left with nothing but to conclude that this is something that you are comfortable engaging in, and are projecting this motive as an attempt at moral equivalency.

There is no other explanation of how an imaginary "support of lying" has any place in a discussion of these emails -- other than a "yeah, but you guys do it too" gibe.


You need to use the term liar more carefully and should be prepared to take responsibility when you do use that term.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

And the implosion has begun:

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'

Other pro-AGW "scientists" are trying to cover their own sorry rear ends by attacking their own.

Meanwhile, pro-AGW zealots are denying there is even a problem.

How ironic that the pro-AGWers are now the deniers.

Originally Posted by dmz

I think this will go a lot faster if you just admit you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

No, it wouldn't act anything like a bank. You would be able to offset your extra usage by paying money. Say you offset a $1,000 by providing money towards clean energy to a village in Africa or organic locally grown fruits and vegetables to communities across the US. Everything that can be used as an offset will have strict rules attached so you can't claim one thing and do another. For instance you buy up forest to offset against your trip to Europe, that company that you offset to that in effect sold you say 5 trees, can't then go and chop them down until the end of whatever you paid is up.

The system obviously isn't in place yet for citizens, but that's roughly how it will probably work. No systems going to be perfect but it will make a huge difference. It's the best way to encourage you to keep an eye on your CO2 et al. footprint.

Originally Posted by dmz

We, the believing lairs or lying believers (I can't really tell) don't have a right to get to the bottom of the CRUtape letters.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

It will make a difference on somebodies bottom line, but I do not see it making any discernible difference in CO2 output. I also see this as being another example of intent over results. \

Originally Posted by dmz

And this is why all this talk about AGW or health care reform or financial reform is utter idiocy -- Nothing Is Going To Change, it is the lifeblood and air that keeps Western society functioning.

Originally Posted by franksargent

That would be emails not letters.

There is no bottom to get to, what with a bunch of "random" emails subsequently taken out-of-context, that wiill never be able to be put into a correct context, except the context of fantasy or make believe.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Even the NYT can't ignore or defend this:



And, brilliantly, Gavin A. Schmidt uses this thing as justifcation to avoid releasing more information:




And the folks at CRU are merely concerned with prosecuting the whistle blower(s):




And the Telegraph: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, also known by the term Tories, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

But it is which handful that's turning out to be important. From the Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, also known by the term Tories, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It all depends. First of all it has to be mandatory for everyone and secondly the amounts people are allotted and how much it would cost to go over those allotted amounts would make all the difference between success and failure.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Climate change data dumped



But I'm sure it's standard scientific practice to throw away much of the raw data after you get the results you want.

Right?

Oh wait, I'm sure the results were "peer reviewed" (by other "scientists" with the same agenda) so it's okay.

CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Well, I see this program as being a money grab by a few well connected groups who will do the minimum possible to with the money given them. This would involve billions of dollars a year and it will likely not have the results you want to see. But it will contain all the appropriate platitudes and buzzwords, and also send money to the appropriate causes and projects so it will be good.

But what will it actually change? I would be better with the giant piggy bank for upgrading peoples vehicles and applicance that need it so there is a direct benefit to the American public than I would with this pie in the sky program.

You could eliminate very old appliances, energy hungry heaters and air conditioners with newer more efficient models, insulate older houses and more. Perhaps it could also be used to upgrade infrastructure or to build new, more efficient power plants which would then bring down the cost of electricity to the end user.

Do I want new taxes, no. But if they are instituted I want to see a benefit that is more than the long term puppies and rainbows effect...

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

franksargent, jazzguru in a recent post posted an interesting link about 'much' of the CRU data being trashed. Have you read it? I think it's important because so long as people think there's been a fraud, they can pin at least some of that to something that can't be proved to be false by science. What's your take on it?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ...

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded in 1984 by Fred L. Smith, Jr and based in Washington, D.C., USA. CEI's stated belief is that humans are best helped not by government regulation of commercial interests, but by humans being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. CEI states that it promotes libertarian ideals through analysis, education, coalition-building, advocacy, and regulation.

... Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation.

... CEI is an outspoken opponent of global warming constituting a problem, and of government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Oops, sorry didn't see your reply until I posted a reply to jazzguru's nonsense abovew.

If any of the original data from the original sources in each country/territory has been lost, it's because it was lost in the country/territory of origin, but absent that, all original data exists, it's just not all in one place in the public domain as of today.

Regardless, none of this will affect the current surface temperature reconstructions, as they exist today, or as they will exist in the future.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I'm sure you'll be pleased with the Obama admin then for doing the "Cash for home appliances" program- http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...821_304909.htm

The government will have to initiate major policy changes and initiate major new programs, not including what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

So it's likely that much of the original raw data still exists and therefore it could, if scientists can gain access to it, be used to see whether that data matches the CRU reconstructions, thereby being able to prove that there hasn't been any fraud yet again?

Originally Posted by franksargent

See link (dated October 14, 2009) in my edited post above.

AFAIK, all original data exists, the excluded data is redundant in that it is in areas where there are multiple met stations (e. g. high areal density of raw data), those data that have been excluded appear to suffer from UHI effects, or some such, thus their exclusion.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Thank you, that's extremely clear.

It's absolutely astonishing how the vested interests will try to spin things to sway public opinion.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Yes it is... On both sides...

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

It's good to see that frank is still hanging his hat on ad hominem fallacies.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Yes it is... On both sides...

Originally Posted by jazzguru

What's the news you've got for his wrong?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Would you believe "specifics" if they were presented to you?

Originally Posted by franksargent

You betcha!

Which is truly ironic, since this thread's very existance is filled with ad hominems with respect to the people who wrote these emails.

You are not arguing against the actual science, you are arguing against the individuals doing the science.

Originally Posted by franksargent

OK, I'll bite.

This thread is about climate scientists private emails.

Care to expose thousands of emails from the Denialers?

Or, better yet, show us all some examples of bad behavior on the part of the Denialers.

As of yet we have very much less than half the true story, until an equal number of compromised and unflattering emails surface from the Denialers, that will forever be the case.

Do the Denialers have emails?

I don't even know what your "On both sides..." comment even means, in what context are you referring to?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

"If you think attribution and MO are mutually exclusive and can be completely ignored, I've got news for you, your wrong."

Since your intellect is far superior to mine, and you are evidently incapable of error, I assumed you meant to write "your" instead of "you're". I was merely trying to understand what you meant.