or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 74

post #2921 of 3039
Debunking the dumbest denier myth: Climate Change vs. Global Warming
Quote:
Some myths pushed by the anti-science crowd are so laughably backwards that repeating them should be grounds for expulsion from homo sapiens sapiens. And so it is with the doubly wrong claim that progressives are now using the term climate change because the planet has supposedly stopped warming.

Of course, it hasnt actually stopped warming (see NASA reports the 12-month running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010 despite recent minimum of solar irradiance We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade and there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s).

But since the deniers make up stuff about the science, why shouldnt they make up stuff about everything else? The most recent iteration of the dumbest denier myth came from hominid Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity, the anti-science, anti-EPA, polluter-funded group that is a driving force behind the Tea Party:

We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming. Hence the name change, you notice how it went from global warming to climate change. Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now its progressivism. They did the same thing with global warming and switched over to climate change.

Progressivism, of course, is a very old idea.

Actually it is conservatives who typically change the names of things, as in refusing to say Democratic but only Democrat and insisting on death tax rather than estate tax, even though only big estates are taxed, not death.

That latter switch was championed by the GOPs spinmaster, Frank Luntz, who, as it turns out, also championed switching from global warming to climate change in 2003. Scientists, environmentalists, progressives, and frankly the whole darn planet have always used both terms hence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988.

In a confidential 2003 memo, Luntz asserted that the Administration and conservatives should stop using the term global warming because it was too frightening:

Its time for us to start talking about climate change instead of global warming and conservation instead of preservation.1) Climate change is less frightening than global warming. As one focus group participant noted, climate change sounds like youre going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale. While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Peter Sinclair has devoted an entire video to debunking this myth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMun...layer_embedded


use both terms, though, as Ive said many times, I prefer Hell and High Water, since is more descriptive of what is to come:

Royal Society special issue details hellish vision of 7°F (4°C) world which we may face in the 2060s!
A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice
Others prefer Global Weirding. Whatever you call it, it aint gonna be pretty.

HAD TO HAPPEN...A NEW THREAD ON GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE.....Ciao!!!....Has to be better than this.



無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2922 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheilafoster View Post

Climatic Research Unit controversy mail started in November 2009 when thousands of emails and other documents of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research has been published. According to the Government of the United Kingdom, e-mails and documents that were illegally released after they were obtained through a computer hacking UEA.

Thank you for your input. This is a rather long thread as you can tell. I think that most of us have moved on to "Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing."

@ http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=115941

Welcome to PO
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2923 of 3039
Quote:
....Norway all had their coolest years since 1996....

CURSE YOU FORCES OF NATURE!!!
post #2924 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK View Post

CURSE YOU FORCES OF NATURE!!!

Cold winters in the northern hemisphere is explained in these. Overall global temperatures are still on the rise with 20 of the warmest years occurring within the last 25 years:

The complete guide to modern day climate change

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=42

More cold and snowy winters to come
Quote:
Loss of sea ice causes major climate change
Continued rapid loss of sea ice will be an important driver of major change in the world's climate system in the years to come.

Quote:
"While the emerging impact of greenhouse gases is an important factor in the changing Arctic, what was not fully recognised until now is that a combination of an unusual warm period due to natural variability, loss of sea ice reflectivity, ocean heat storage and changing wind patterns working together has disrupted the memory and stability of the Arctic climate system, resulting in greater ice loss than earlier climate models predicted," says Dr Overland.

"The exceptional cold and snowy winter of 2009-2010 in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America is connected to unique physical processes in the Arctic," he says.....

Cold winter in a world of warming?

Simple rebuttals to denier talking points with links to the full climate science

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=31
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2925 of 3039
Who was that Republican who spent the winter holiday in DC last year making an iglo to prove GW was false? Could it have been Inhofe?

Maybe he (and many like him) should read up on the science behind the current winter weather.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/op...me&ref=general

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2926 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Cold winters in the northern hemisphere is explained in these....

What I meant was I was very unlucky then! I went to Norway in 2010 and its was fucking cold, and pissed down relentlessly... Now I know I was just unlucky!

Never mind, there is always 2011
post #2927 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Who was that Republican who spent the winter holiday in DC last year making an iglo to prove GW was false? Could it have been Inhofe?

Maybe he (and many like him) should read up on the science behind the current winter weather.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/op...me&ref=general

I understand what is being explained there but don't see how climate shifting is the same thing as climate changing. The reasoning amounts to, it's colder here because it was warmer there. Another link used the analogy of leaving a fridge open and the heat would escape out until the surrounding area thus cooling it. The energy merely equalizes though given the open door. There isn't more of it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2928 of 3039
Right on queue the NYT comes out with this.

Bundle Up, Its Global Warming



post #2929 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Right on queue the NYT comes out with this.

Bundle Up, Its Global Warming

Cold comfort: Canada's record-smashing mildness
Quote:
Some fascinating weather has unfolded across the Northern Hemisphere over the last month, but you may have only heard about part of it. The media dutifully reported on the heavy snow that battered the mid-Atlantic and New England states in late December. It was also the United Kingdoms coldest December in at least the last century. Meanwhile, the sparsely populated Canadian Arctic basked in near-unprecedented mildness.

Its the second chapter of a tale that began a year ago, when Canada as a whole saw the warmest and driest winter in its history. Much of the blame went to El Niño, which typically produces warmer-than-average weather across Canada. So far, so goodbut similar things are happening this winter, even with a La Niña now at the helm.


Surface temperature anomalies for the period 17 December 2010 to 15 January 2011 show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic. (Image courtesy NOAA/ESRL/PSD Map Room.)
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2930 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Now this is interesting...

The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link

Quote:
What links Climategate and the News of the World phone hacking scandal? Try Thursday’s arrest of Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the recently defunct UK tabloid, and the man hired by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson as his “personal media advisor”. The ‘relationship’ is currently the center of a media storm over potential collusion between the press and police. Wallis, however, also happens to be Managing Director of Outside Organisation, the same PR firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a government-funded research group, tasked with carrying out “covert” activity after the leaked emails scandal broke.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2931 of 3039
"The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er-house-lords

"Last year, the then clerk of the parliaments, Michael Pownall, wrote to Monckton stressing that he was not entitled to call himself a member, nor should he use parliament's famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years."

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdaIZSeoRBg&NR=1
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2932 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Here Comes Climategate, Part II

Text of article follows:
__________________________________________________ ______

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person or persons unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

Quote:
Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.

Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.

One dollar can save a life the opposite must also be true.

Poverty is a death sentence.

Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.

Todays decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you're going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you're going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you're going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You'll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke's website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

Quote:
/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about Subsequent evidence [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge more evidence. What is it?

And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

Quote:
<0714> Jones:
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

Quote:
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I cant overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and dont want to be made to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

Quote:
<3655> Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed global icons [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...] It also became apparent that there was always a local reason for the destruction cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an unchanging environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves like that of last summer? Thats the sort of thing we need to think about.

I'll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don't think I'd be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2933 of 3039
Seems to be much ado about nothing, again.

Quote:
A new batch of nearly 230,000 illegally hacked emails is up online in the same old places the last batch went up in November of 2009. It seems like old times. Jeff Id, the Air Vent blogger, has a batch up again, as do other climate deniers. And get this -- they all appear to predate the 2009 release and so are just more of the same, held back until now.

What's most remarkable is that the emails are so -- well, normal. Here are the shocking -- and I mean shocking -- things that climate scientists are emailing each other, according to Id:

We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.
Wow. That's a shocker. A scientist saying they need to communicate the uncertainty in their data. Which, by the way, they do in every study they publish. It's a required part of science.

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
Geez. Another shocker. A leading expert of temperature reconstructions is skeptical of temperature reconstructions but still lets the data guide his ultimate conclusions. Isn't that sort of skepticism what we want? And oh, by the way, the National Academies has done extensive work that -- huh -- confirmed proxy data temperature reconstructions and even extended the data set.

This is a bit like the loony old argument that it's just a theory -- when in science a "theory" is the one explanation that's supported by all the experiments and data we've accumulated to date.

The illegally hacked personal emails go on like this for reams and reams of mind-numbing back and forth that even the climate deniers that are happily hosting them say they haven't had time to read -- they just do text searches for any damning-sounding words they can think of, pull up those highlights, take the ones that seem to confirm their position out of context, and direct attention to them.

And the mainstream media are supposed to now lap this new manufactured controversy up like stupid puppies.

In 2009, the "climategate" hack "coincidentally" happened just before the Copenhagen climate summit and the build-up to the climate bill in congress. In yet another strange coincidence of timing, this new theft just happens to come just before the upcoming U.N. climate conference in South Africa and on the heels of the IPCC's new report linking the increase in extreme weather events to climate change, together with the BEST study.

BEST, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, was run by physicist Richard Muller, a climate skeptic. To the dismay of the energy industry-funded denialist community, after crunching 1.2 billion data points Muller found last month that in fact climate scientists have been right all along and their data is solid -- the Earth is getting warmer at a very rapid pace.

Muller published a striking op-ed about it in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. The Journal published the op-ed online but, not surprisingly considering their owner, they decided not to run it in their print edition. Muller said the time for skepticism is over. Murdoch-owned Fox News was a major promoter of the last climate email scandal-that-wasn't, and a Fox executive actually ordered Fox News reporters to slant their coverage of climate change to favor deniers.

So now that the science is getting even stronger, it's time to redirect the public's attention with renewed personal attacks and illegally hacked emails that cherry pick quotes, take them out of context, and try to spin them and confuse the public. What the heck -- it worked last time.

After the last climate email scandal, six separate investigations found that there was no scandal, it was cooked up out of nothing, and the underlying data was solid. The only question is will reporters allow themselves to be manipulated by energy industry front groups and fringe denialist cranks blowing smoke and slime to further promote spin and obfuscation on the largest policy challenges facing the United States? Or will they do their job and report what's really happening based on research, data and investigation?

Because multiple independent lines of data accumulated by thousands of researchers over the last fifty years all point in the same direction and even some leading climate skeptics are now admitting that and reversing their previous positions.

That's not going to change no matter what the random scientist happens to say in the odd personal email.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2934 of 3039
Thread Starter 
From the Climategate 2.0 emails, Phil Jones instructs on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests:

"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process"

No, we can't have the public seeing the truth, can we?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2935 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data:

"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

What's this? Government complicit in hiding data in order to ensure continuation of mutually beneficial crony agreement funded by tax dollars? Never!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2936 of 3039
Thread Starter 
More info on Climategate 2.0 from The Guardian

Quote:
A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists' handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the "sheer volume of material" meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

In the new release a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves "FOIA" then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.

One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."

The use of points instead of commas to mark the thousands when writing a number – highly unusual in both the UK or US – is sure to lead to speculation about the nationality of those responsible.

The message then includes a sample of cherry-picked quotes selected from a small handful of the emails focusing on apparent disagreements between the scientists, the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and attempts to block climate sceptics from securing documents from the scientists via freedom of information requests. Many of the same issues were highlighted in the 2009 release.

One of the most damaging claims in 2009 was that Prof Phil Jones, the head of the UEA's Climatic Research Institute had deleted emails to avoid FOI request. One of the reviews into the content of the emails, conducted by Sir Muir Russell, concluded that "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" - something that Jones has denied. At the time CRU was coming under sustained pressure by an organised campaign to release information, which the scientists saw as distracting from their work.

The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: "I've been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC's fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process".

In a statement, the University of East Anglia said: "While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems. If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks."

It continued: "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the university and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so."

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".

When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

He said, the people behind the release were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

An ongoing investigation by Norfolk Police into the 2009 release of emails has so far failed to result in any charges or arrests. A spokesperson said: "We are aware of the release of the document cache. The contents will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing."

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2937 of 3039
They held back these emails for two and a half years "to do maximum damage" despite the fact that they don't dispute the science behind climate change. And you have the balls to call climate change scientists out on motive and tactics?
post #2938 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Their own emails are calling them out on motive and tactics.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2939 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Their own emails are calling them out on motive and tactics.

Yes, but their own emails are not being hypocritical.
post #2940 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, but their own emails are not being hypocritical.

In addition, none of these emails are dated later than the other ones that were released. The data has ALREADY been comprehensively reviewed and VERIFIED. These new emails bring NOTHING NEW TO THE TABLE and DO NOT SERVE TO INVALIDATE THE LATER INDEPENDENT SURVEYS CONFIRMING THE RESULTS.

Like I said, much ado about nothing. The sounds you hear coming from Jazz and his fellow deniers are the noises willful ignorance makes in the face of reality.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2941 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, but their own emails are not being hypocritical.

Indeed they are.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2942 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Indeed they are.

Show us, or shut up.
post #2943 of 3039
Thread Starter 
You can lead a horse to water...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2944 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Show us, or shut up.

He showed it clearly. Science doesn't have an agenda, an intent or a spin.

Stuff like this....

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats included and what is left out.


That isn't science.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2945 of 3039
Thread Starter 
This is not science either:

2368

Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.

There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
going through these.

Cheers
Phil


This is a blatant attempt to hide information from the public that might damage a political agenda.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2946 of 3039
Deleting emails with people who themselves have a political agenda...meh.

Also, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...d+Astronomy%29

Quote:
But as that table shows, there are plenty of words I use all the time that someone else might know, and think means something else. And this is incredibly important, especially if a science writer — as happens more and more often these days — needs to defuse some sort of political spin thrust upon a topic. A classic example in the wholly-manufactured Climategate "controversy". A lot of hot air was generated over the use of the word "trick" in the stolen emails — which most people interpreted as meaning the scientists did something underhanded and sneaky to hide something important. In reality, we use that word to just mean a method of doing something that’s clever. It’s like saying, "The trick in never losing your car keys is to always hang them on a hook by the door that leads outside." See the difference?
But over that, political battles are won or lost.

There are times I fret over a word in a post. It took me a while to start using the word "denier" instead of "skeptic", for example, but the difference is important. I’ve fought for years to teach people that skepticism is not cynicism or denial; it’s asking for and looking at evidence logically and rationally (in a nutshell). What’s funny is that now the media uses phrases like "climate skeptic" when talking about some people who are not skeptics, in that they are not looking at the evidence logically and rationally. They look at evidence so they can figure out how to spin it, cast doubt in the mind of the public over something that is actually a fact.
That’s why I call it "denial". The word fits, and I intend to continue using it when it does.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2947 of 3039
Ooh, astronomer Phil Plait just made a post about this fabricated, bullshit scandal. He even uses the same phrase I did in his title! I feel special.

Quote:
Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.

Geez, this again? Seriously?

Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

I wrote about this when it happened and then again quickly thereafter, showing this was just noise. Accusations of fraud were leveled at climate scientist Michael Mann, but time and again he was exonerated: like this time, and then this time, and then this time, and of course this time, and then my favorite, this time.

Climategate was widely denounced as a manufactured controversy, except, of course, by denialists. Because they denied it. That’s axiomatic.

However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.

[UPDATE: Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called on the US intelligence community to investigate who stole these emails. I think this is the right move. We still don't know who did this two years ago, and I'd be fascinated to see who was behind it. H/T Michael Mann on Twitter.]

Climate change denial blogs picked up on this immediately of course. There are examples in the Guardian article linked above. But this is the usual hue and cry, with nothing really new. About all this supposedly new material Michael Mann said:
Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

It’s hard for me to argue against this, given what Dr. Mann has gone through the past few years. Attacked constantly, exonerated repeatedly, he knows the climate change denialist methods probably better than anyone.

The University of East Anglia, from which the stolen emails originated, issued a press release:
This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

That last bit about Berkeley is from just a few weeks ago, showing once again that global warming is real, and that Dr. Mann’s results show that there has been a sudden, recent, and large increase in global temperatures.

None of this comes as a surprise to any of us who have been covering this for the past few years. I wonder, though, if the mainstream media have learned their lesson? Think Progress wonders the same thing.

So, with the Noise Machine ready to blast into full gear, let me be very, very clear:
Global warming is real. Independent studies confirm it. Vast amounts of evidence support it. 97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this. It’s almost certainly caused by human activity.

Got it?

The evidence is overwhelming, and no amount of noise will stop that. But that’s why the noise is made, to distract you. We are long past the time when this was simple skepticism — the open and honest questioning of evidence — and are now well into full-blown denial. This second release of emails is more evidence for that, especially given the timing.
And in some sectors that won’t make a difference — cough cough Fox News cough cough — because they are impervious to evidence. So if this doesn’t blow over immediately — as well it probably should — then expect to see a lot more of this:



Many excellent links to plenty of sources backing up his statements are littered throughout the post so it's worth clicking on the link above and reading it there.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2948 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This is not science either:

2368

Dave,
Do I understand it correctly if he doesnt pay the £10 we dont have to respond?

With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.

There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but Im not wasting my time
going through these.

Cheers
Phil


This is a blatant attempt to hide information from the public that might damage a political agenda.

Where are the attacks on the other side for doing the same? Like I said, these emails show nothing hypocritical.
post #2949 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Where are the attacks on the other side for doing the same? Like I said, these emails show nothing hypocritical.

Are you saying that it isn't hypocritical to declare that you have the objective truth and then go around twisting, manipulating, hiding information because what you have instead is a lie?

If you claim you are going to be chaste and screw your neighbor, you are a hypocrite. If you claim to have the truth and go around hiding anything that would prove it a lie, you are a hypocrite. This is doubly so when foisting upon others the fact that science is open and peer reviewed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2950 of 3039
Thread Starter 
The other side isn't getting tax money grants from the government in exchange for telling the public that we need more government to "save the planet", then refusing to disclose all scientific information attained using said tax money because it would undermine the political agenda.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2951 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The other side isn't getting tax money grants from the government in exchange for telling the public that we need more government to "save the planet", then refusing to disclose all scientific information attained using said tax money because it would undermine the political agenda.

You honestly think the motivation of 'the other side' isn't financial?



No, wait...

post #2952 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Ah, so if the "motivation" is "correct", the ends justify the means. Is that what you're saying?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2953 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Are you saying that it isn't hypocritical to declare that you have the objective truth and then go around twisting, manipulating, hiding information because what you have instead is a lie?

If you claim you are going to be chaste and screw your neighbor, you are a hypocrite. If you claim to have the truth and go around hiding anything that would prove it a lie, you are a hypocrite. This is doubly so when foisting upon others the fact that science is open and peer reviewed.

Um. Yeah. You do know what the fucking word means, right? Apparently not. Why am I still surprised each time you show this level of ignorance?
post #2954 of 3039
I send a big thank you to whoever wrote this post.

home decorating ideas | luxury kitchen designs
post #2955 of 3039
Thread Starter 
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.


Science? Or political activism?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2956 of 3039
Thread Starter 
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.


Why are "scientists" concerned with making people think or believe a certain way? Shouldn't the science speak for itself?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2957 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Um. Yeah. You do know what the fucking word means, right? Apparently not. Why am I still surprised each time you show this level of ignorance?

What's not at all surprising is you personally attacking me when you've lost the argument.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2958 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Climategate 2.0: the Warmists' seven stages of grief

Quote:
Climategate 2.0 – the gift that goes on giving. And you know how good it is from the reaction of the trolls. They're going mental. On the one hand they'd like to insist it's a non-story. On the other hand, the more shrilly they shriek it's a non-story the more evident it becomes just what a great story it is.

Here's an amusing analysis of the warmist trolls' various lines of defence, which I picked up from the comments at Watts Up With That: (H/T Alix James – and a big thanks to all those of you who helped me find him)

Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.


Repeat as needed

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2959 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Al Gore’s global warming claims on Kilimanjaro glacier – finally dead and buried in the Climategate 2.0 emails – even Phil Jones and Lonnie Thompson don’t believe it

Quote:
5315.txt

date: Sat Sep 18 08:48:09 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: Re: kilimanjaro
to: “Jenkins, Geoff” <geoff.jenkins@metoffice.xx.xx>

Geoff,
The data that are used for the grid box should be within the grid box. They will be low
elevation sites though, and this may be part of the reason. It might be worth seeing if
there is anything in the U/A data – but I reckon there won’t be much in that region.
I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down. They are going though.

Lonnie’s email is “Lonnie G. Thompson” <thompson.3@osu.xxx.xxx>
You could try emailing Ellen as well both might be in the field.
Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@osu.xxx.xxx>
I’m off much of the next 6 weeks at meetings.
I hear you’re retiring soon – hope all goes well ! I’m sure you’ll still be in the field somewhere.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:32 16/09/2004, you wrote:

phil
<<kilimanjaro.doc>>
we have been concerned that people often use the melting glacier on kilimanjaro as an
example of impacts of man-made warming. you may have seen some stories countering this on the sceptics websites.

I got philip brohan to look at temps there (see attached) and there isnt any convincing consistent recent warming in the station data. but your gridded CRUtem2V does show a recent warming. presumably that is because (as philip suggests) the gridded stuff has influences from quite a large radius, and hence may reflect warming at stations a long way from kilimanjaro?

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
be grateful for your help
cheers
geoff
Dr Geoff Jenkins
Head, Climate Prediction Programme
Hadley Centre
Met Office
FitzRoy Road, EXETER, EX1 3PB, UK
tel: +44 (0) 1392 xxxxxx
mobile: 0787 966 1136
[1]www.hadleycentre.xxxx.xx

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
———————————————————

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2960 of 3039
Ooh, astronomer Phil Plait just made a post about this fabricated, bullshit scandal. He even uses the same phrase I did in his title! I feel special.

Quote:
Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.

Geez, this again? Seriously?

Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

I wrote about this when it happened and then again quickly thereafter, showing this was just noise. Accusations of fraud were leveled at climate scientist Michael Mann, but time and again he was exonerated: like this time, and then this time, and then this time, and of course this time, and then my favorite, this time.

Climategate was widely denounced as a manufactured controversy, except, of course, by denialists. Because they denied it. That’s axiomatic.

However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.

[UPDATE: Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called on the US intelligence community to investigate who stole these emails. I think this is the right move. We still don't know who did this two years ago, and I'd be fascinated to see who was behind it. H/T Michael Mann on Twitter.]

Climate change denial blogs picked up on this immediately of course. There are examples in the Guardian article linked above. But this is the usual hue and cry, with nothing really new. About all this supposedly new material Michael Mann said:
Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

It’s hard for me to argue against this, given what Dr. Mann has gone through the past few years. Attacked constantly, exonerated repeatedly, he knows the climate change denialist methods probably better than anyone.

The University of East Anglia, from which the stolen emails originated, issued a press release:
This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

That last bit about Berkeley is from just a few weeks ago, showing once again that global warming is real, and that Dr. Mann’s results show that there has been a sudden, recent, and large increase in global temperatures.

None of this comes as a surprise to any of us who have been covering this for the past few years. I wonder, though, if the mainstream media have learned their lesson? Think Progress wonders the same thing.

So, with the Noise Machine ready to blast into full gear, let me be very, very clear:
Global warming is real. Independent studies confirm it. Vast amounts of evidence support it. 97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this. It’s almost certainly caused by human activity.

Got it?

The evidence is overwhelming, and no amount of noise will stop that. But that’s why the noise is made, to distract you. We are long past the time when this was simple skepticism — the open and honest questioning of evidence — and are now well into full-blown denial. This second release of emails is more evidence for that, especially given the timing.
And in some sectors that won’t make a difference — cough cough Fox News cough cough — because they are impervious to evidence. So if this doesn’t blow over immediately — as well it probably should — then expect to see a lot more of this:



Many excellent links to plenty of sources backing up his statements are littered throughout the post so it's worth clicking on the link above and reading it there.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate