Climategate 2.0

[davmat787]

That looks like it could be scientists trying to avoid legal harassment by "skeptics" with political agendas. Of course it's kind of open to interpretation, which is sort of the point. This Climategate stuff isn't science, it's politics.

One thing that really frustrates me with the increasing amounts of email leaks and wikileaks of recent years is that people seem to forget that an organization needs latitude when discussing issues internally. Just because something is said in email does not make it ironclad policy, it might be an internal teams thinking aloud perhaps.

Just leads to more partisan BS because, as you put it, much of it is left to interpretation.

Organizations need to be able to think and communicate freely internally, without fear of thinking what might happen if it is leaked.

 

[cybrsage]

One thing that really frustrates me with the increasing amounts of email leaks and wikileaks of recent years is that people seem to forget that an organization needs latitude when discussing issues internally. Just because something is said in email does not make it ironclad policy, it might be an internal teams thinking aloud perhaps.

Just leads to more partisan BS because, as you put it, much of it is left to interpretation.

Organizations need to be able to think and communicate freely internally, without fear of thinking what might happen if it is leaked.

Isn't that why God invented water coolers?

 

[monovillage]

First from the article i posted previously. The second is from one of the new e-mails.

"ScienceInsider can reveal that the scientist, Eugene Wahl of the National Climatic Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, admits to deleting the e-mails, which was done during his tenure at Alfred University in New York. That was before he became an employee at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

"date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008
from: Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <???@uea.ac.uk>

Dave,
Do I understand it correctly - if he doesn't pay the &#163;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
At 09:51 25/11/2008, you wrote:

Gents,
Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the substance of Mr.
McIntyre's comments but now have to handle his request under DPA (which means a troll
through your files for material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under
the DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that individual and
subject to access under a DPA subject access request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all
to be careful in what you put in your correspondence.
As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, &#163;10, and a form
before we proceed but I do assume that all will be forthcoming upon request. We then
have 40 calendar days to respond.

Cheers, Dave"

Searchable database for climategate 2.0 here
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php

 

[shira]

You brought over some Boston Market. They make good food. You appeared sincere in your effort, so I lowered my standards for you.

I have to say, you are quite experienced...so it was worth it.

That wasn't me. My hot Asian girlfriend has been with me since 7 PM. Say "Hi" to the sad little man, honey!

&#21992;&#65281;

Awwww, isn't she a sweety?

But I'm so sorry you allowed yourself to be violated for the price of a roasted chicken breast.

 

[monovillage]

I don't really know what to think about these emails, but it has no impact on climate science as a whole. Nothing has been shown that adds any doubt about the data or what was published. Which is why I find this to have no real impact on much other than what a couple people might have done to get rid of some emails. Now you might argue that it brings in their integrity, and if they did this what else might have they done. But that's what pier review and those investigations did check and found no wrong doing.

It may be that something wrong was done, but nothing is shown that it has any impact on climate science. Until this changes their is no good reason to think otherwise.

Seems that most agree that our climate is warming, what is causing this warming trend? Which factors are man made which are not?

For some reason people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it. Others like myself feel that the warming is mostly natural and taking huge and very expensive, if not economically destructive and certainly lifestyle destructive steps is foolish in the extreme. Especially without evidence that global warming AKA climate change is anthropogenic and if any of the steps we make can/will do anything to slow, prevent or stop it. The science is not settled, never was. If you can show me some kind of proof or evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming, i'd like to see it and so would every climate scientist in the world because they haven't seen it yet. BTW proven inaccurate climate models don't count and never did.

 

[cybrsage]

That wasn't me. My hot Asian girlfriend has been with me since 7 PM. Say "Hi" to the sad little man, honey!

&#21992;&#65281;

Awwww, isn't she a sweety?

But I'm so sorry you allowed yourself to be violated for the price of a roasted chicken breast.

You told me she was a streetwalker you picked up to carry the food into the house and give me backrubs. She gives good backrubs too. You did not see since you were...um....busy doing other things with me.

Stop playing around! You are starting to make me feel like you do not love me anyone.

 

[cybrsage]

For some reason people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it. Others like myself feel that the warming is mostly natural and taking huge and very expensive, if not economically destructive and certainly lifestyle destructive steps is foolish in the extreme. Especially without evidence that global warming AKA climate change is anthropogenic and if any of the steps we make can/will do anything to slow, prevent or stop it. The science is not settled, never was.

If you can show me some kind of proof or evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming, i'd like to see it and so would every climate scientist in the world because they haven't seen it yet. BTW proven inaccurate climate models don't count and never did.

Interestingly enough, the usual starting point I have seen for the warming trend is placed at the coldest point of the little ice age...when the planet was abnormally cold. There is something dishonest about that.

 

[monovillage]

Interestingly enough, the usual starting point I have seen for the warming trend is placed at the coldest point of the little ice age...when the planet was abnormally cold. There is something dishonest about that.

Well if you extend the timeline back 5,000 years we're in a cooling trend. Since the end of the LIA at about 1700 we're in a warming trend.

 

[davmat787]

Isn't that why God invented water coolers?

I suppose. To be clear I am not suggesting anything illegal, such as an organization needing internal latitude on how to misrepresent a product or scientific findings, just that somethings are best kept internal. Not speaking to anything specific to the climate debate really.

 

[cybrsage]

Well if you extend the timeline back 5,000 years we're in a cooling trend. Since the end of the LIA at about 1700 we're in a warming trend.

Personally, I know we are in an overall warming trend because there isn't a glacier outside my door.

I just found their starting point to be a bit interesting.

 

[cybrsage]

I suppose. To be clear I am not suggesting anything illegal, such as an organization needing internal latitude on how to misrepresent a product or scientific findings, just that somethings are best kept internal. Not speaking to anything specific to the climate debate really.

Agreed.

 

[Paul98]

For some reason people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it. Others like myself feel that the warming is mostly natural and taking huge and very expensive, if not economically destructive and certainly lifestyle destructive steps is foolish in the extreme. Especially without evidence that global warming AKA climate change is anthropogenic and if any of the steps we make can/will do anything to slow, prevent or stop it. The science is not settled, never was. If you can show me some kind of proof or evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming, i'd like to see it and so would every climate scientist in the world because they haven't seen it yet. BTW proven inaccurate climate models don't count and never did.

First the cost aspect, I can see slowly going over and trying to diminish certain effects we have on global climate. Much of which will eventually dry up on it's own. Much of the change people are trying to force right now is sorely inadequate. But changes will happen eventually and the longer we wait the worse the damage will be and unless major changes are start to be made the cost will far higher than they are if we start now.

As for evidence, look at the atmospheric chemical composition and changes based on humans. You will see some positive some negative. Since you seem to accept that global warming is happening there are reasons, they be natural or man made the causes need to be studied so we will know what the future holds. This is what has been studied and from current evidence it seems that we are causing much of the warming that is happening currently.

 

[monovillage]

..............Since you seem to accept that global warming is happening there are reasons, they be natural or man made the causes need to be studied so we will know what the future holds. This is what has been studied and from current evidence it seems that we are causing much of the warming that is happening currently.

We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars and severely damaged some world economies with useless global warming "cures". Individuals like shira and groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund and others would have us spending trillions on the same ineffective solutions. What I think most reasonable people want to know is: Is there a real problem? How bad is it going to be? Are humans actually causing it? What can be done to either prevent, fix or ameliorate it? Will those solutions work? How much is it going to cost?
The science doesn't tell us any of this, the uncertainties are too high, the error bars too broad and the basic science has been stifled, hence the climategate e-mails which lay these things out.

Here's a rather old article about climate money spent.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/

 

[LunarRay]

I still recall our EPA folks telling the folks in a particular part of a city that '... The Air is Safe to Breathe...' While the Air contained all manner of 'stuff' not to be breathed...

IOW, folks have an agenda that sit on both sides of this issue and I don't think we know what exactly that agenda is. Until we know what that agenda might be we must try to parse it ourselves without the where-with-all to do it.

I feel strongly that if one is to do nothing then one side wins... but what is won? IF we do something then who wins and what do they win?...

Everyone has an agenda... AND everyone lies...

 

[shira]

You told me she was a streetwalker you picked up to carry the food into the house and give me backrubs. She gives good backrubs too. You did not see since you were...um....busy doing other things with me.

Stop playing around! You are starting to make me feel like you do not love me anyone.

Nope, sorry, it seems you've made a horrendous mistake. I'm scanning your room via my remote webcam controller and you seem to have your right hand up the rectum of a really old guy. Wait, wait. Oh, wow! That's Larry Craig. You know, the "wide stance" guy. Awww, you two are such a cute couple. Look, he's about to stick his tongue in your ear:

Could you turn your head so we can see the two of you? As to that Asian hooker you mentioned, you'd better get ready, because I can see she's really starting to get wet:

Not my kind of woman, but whatever turns you on, I always say. Enjoy!

 

[JSt0rm]

I see you are still refusing to support your position. Does it ever bother you when you do that?

I haven't had a day off of work in over 50 days. Do you really think I give a fuck to talk with some unemployed nutter like you seriously in the little time I have? Right then.

 

[shira]

For some reason people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it. Others like myself feel that the warming is mostly natural and taking huge and very expensive, if not economically destructive and certainly lifestyle destructive steps is foolish in the extreme. Especially without evidence that global warming AKA climate change is anthropogenic and if any of the steps we make can/will do anything to slow, prevent or stop it. The science is not settled, never was. If you can show me some kind of proof or evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming, i'd like to see it and so would every climate scientist in the world because they haven't seen it yet. BTW proven inaccurate climate models don't count and never did.

It's rare that I read a sentence as chock-full of errors as the one you've written, above.

For example, I'm 100% certain that I've never, ever - in any forum, in person, or via any form of electronic communication - made reference to a "300 year, or so" history of warming.

And I certainly would never make the completely imbecilic argument that "since most, if not all, people believe that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so," therefore "steps must be taken to stop it."

Please, PLEASE provide a link - any link - showing where I've made either of these arguments.

The right is clearly getting desperate. Their attitude seems to be that if you can't beat them on the science and you can't discredit them, then the only avenue left to scoundrels is to make shit up.

 

[monovillage]

Did I make a mistake on your timeline? How long do you say we've been warming? Aren't you recommending actions about climate change? Perhaps i should ask what steps you've suggested in the past to combat ACC ?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Theres nothing like context, and theres nothing like context in these accusations. People might want to look a little deeper. There is no Climategate, sorry.

Agree...context is everything.

How about this...let's take one of the email quotes you (or anyone here for that matter) find particularly disturbing and let's examine the context.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...gy-e-mails-just-before-climate-conference.ars

"The quotes [...] that are making the rounds have been completely divorced from their context, and typically constitute a single sentence from a much larger conversation.

To see how misleading this is, it's easy to take an example. One scientist is quoted as saying, "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out." On its own, that sounds like an attempt to start with a conclusion and work your way backwards to selectively present data. And, in fact, many blogs are predictably presenting it that way.

However, the surrounding text makes it clear that the author was describing the best approach to writing and editing a half-page summary. The full text provides a very different impression:

"I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid [sic] what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data&#8212;not inconclusive information."
That quote is just one of over 100 instances of the word "trick" in the files, a term that caused a lot of hyperventilating the first time around. But most of them show how the term is actually used in very boring contexts, as a way of referring to a technique: "Tricks like regressing out the (known) NAO-signal or smoothing the response patterns (hoping to further reduce the noise) don't help much. I expected this to work better, so I may have to look at this again."

There's also a bit of an indication that those people doing the excerpting don't understand the state of the science."

Yup, it's all a conspiracy by those pesky atheist scientists, acting in collusion with crooked liberal politicians...

 

[monovillage]

The Great Global Warming Fizzle
The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html

"As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit."

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll provide some context in a case study, Alaska. The ocean cycle entirely dominates the temperature in that state. Where is the 'it's worse than we thought' signal in Alaska?

All you see is a step increase 30 years ago, it has been flat ever since. Did all the CO2 in the atmosphere skip Alaska?

Why The World Began In 1979

Many alarmists pretend that no climate data exists prior to 1979. Two important things happened around that time.

1. The PDO went positive
2. Satellites went up

Positive PDO is associated with El Nino, which tends to produce less violent weather in the places where climate scientists live. It also made Alaska warm up several degrees almost overnight, which has been a wonderful scam in itself for alarmists – who claim that temperatures there are still warming despite the fact that there has been no rise for over 30 years.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Now that the PDO has gone negative again, we are seeing more tornadoes, droughts and floods (in places where climate scientists live.)
If the alarmists acknowledged the existence of time prior to 1979, they would see the same floods, droughts and tornadoes – and have to admit that there is no substance to their sustenance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...gy-e-mails-just-before-climate-conference.ars

Yup, it's all a conspiracy by those pesky atheist scientists, acting in collusion with crooked liberal politicians...

Since you have an academic and professional background required to understand these things in detail, I suggest you read about Michael Mann's Nature Trick...it's actually quite fascinating.

 

[piasabird]

It means nothing even if there is some climate change. What you going to do about it?

Whole argument is pointless.

 

[IGBT]

It means nothing even if there is some climate change. What you going to do about it?

Whole argument is pointless.

we will use alarmist rhetoric and voodoo science and lies with cherry picked data to politicize the weather and institutionalize massive punitive tax with needless regulation and hire a massive bureaucracy to enforce it 24/7. And then call that progress.