Climategate 2.0

[cybrsage]

They are in line. Look at the temperature graph:

The reason the current temp is not as "pointy" is we have more data samples to smooth it out. Notice the prior three cycles. Look at our current cycle. Notice anything familiar?

 

[monovillage]

Beautifully said. Strongly seconded.

Look, if we could take the whole Earth's athmosphere and compress it in a way that would allow it to maintain the same density everywhere, its thickness would be a mere 5 kilometres. Now think about all the crap we've been spewing in the air for the last 150 years or so... suddenly, climate change becomes frighteningly possible - and believable.

Are you strongly seconding him because of his inaccuracies, or his decision to ignore another poster who always strives for accuracy? I bet you're strongly seconding him because you agree with his message, even if it's wrong. Reminds me of the righties in the 60's that had the "My country right or wrong" bumper stickers, you can get one that says "my science right or wrong" and put it on your bicycle.

 

[NeoV]

cyber - do yourself a favor and read up on the glacial/interglacial periods, and how your little graph doesn't do a lot of things you think it does

 

[Munky]

I can't wait until these "climate summits" go the way of the Crusades, The Inquisition, the Prohibition, and other ugly pimples on the face of human history.

 

[cybrsage]

cyber - do yourself a favor and read up on the glacial/interglacial periods, and how your little graph doesn't do a lot of things you think it does

When you say "my little graph", you are talking about the graph that all scientists accept...those who support AGW and those who do not support AGW.

It is simply a collection of data points gathered from ice core samples. The only way the graph could be wrong is if the data gathered from the ice core samples are wrong. While that is certainly possible, then it is wrong for everyone.

There is no pro or con AGW on this graph...it simply shows reality over a long period of time. Reality is what is against AGW.

 

[Jaskalas]

The only way the graph could be wrong is...

Let me correct you there. They won't need to say it's wrong, if they simply ignore it.

Their response will be 'it doesn't mean what you think it means'. Let the 'experts' tell you. Let them think for you. Only eco activists are qualified to tell you what the graph is and where it belongs in the scope of things.

 

[shira]

Just look at the level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread: Unable to refute the science - and NeoV has provided an excellent summary of the 6 separate analyses of ClimateGate 1.0, all of which found no manipulation of data and no distortion of the science - the climate-change denial crowd is reduced to attacking individual climatologists for alleged FOIA violations.

Note that these attacks have nothing substantive to do with ACC. Mann is attacked for allegedly withholding climate data during a FOIA request. And then the attackers perform their truly slimy move: They pretend that the alleged withholding of data by Mann "proves" that ACC is false. I'll say that again: They completely ignore all the actual science - and all of the conclusions of six separate analyses of Climategate - and insist that Mann withheld data from a FOIA request, and - therefore - ACC must be false.

Climategate 2.0 - just like Climategate 1.0 before it - is a classic ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with science.

 

[sandorski]

Just look at the level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread: Unable to refute the science - and NeoV has provided an excellent summary of the 6 separate analyses of ClimateGate 1.0, all of which found no manipulation of data and no distortion of the science - the climate-change denial crowd is reduced to attacking individual climatologists for alleged FOIA violations.

Note that these attacks have nothing substantive to do with ACC. Mann is attacked for allegedly withholding climate data during a FOIA request. And then the attackers perform their truly slimy move: They pretend that the alleged withholding of data by Mann "proves" that ACC is false. I'll say that again: They completely ignore all the actual science - and all of the conclusions of six separate analyses of Climategate - and insist that Mann withheld data from a FOIA request, and - therefore - ACC must be false.

Climategate 2.0 - just like Climategate 1.0 before it - is a classic ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with science.

Only if they could Hear above the Din of their Denial. I'm sure 2.0 is not the last of them. I'm also sure each one will be as inept as the last, yet be held up as a beacon of truth by the Denier crowd.

 

[monovillage]

Just look at the level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread: Unable to refute the science - and NeoV has provided an excellent summary of the 6 separate analyses of ClimateGate 1.0, all of which found no manipulation of data and no distortion of the science - the climate-change denial crowd is reduced to attacking individual climatologists for alleged FOIA violations.

Note that these attacks have nothing substantive to do with ACC. Mann is attacked for allegedly withholding climate data during a FOIA request. And then the attackers perform their truly slimy move: They pretend that the alleged withholding of data by Mann "proves" that ACC is false. I'll say that again: They completely ignore all the actual science - and all of the conclusions of six separate analyses of Climategate - and insist that Mann withheld data from a FOIA request, and - therefore - ACC must be false.

Climategate 2.0 - just like Climategate 1.0 before it - is a classic ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with science.

I never said Mann withheld data from a FOIA request, I said that Phil Jones (head of CRU) and Eugene Wahl (NCDC) illegally deleted e-mails that were subject to a FOIA request, both have admitted it, it's not even in doubt. You were the one that brought Mann into this as anything other then a link between Jones and Wahl.

 

[NeoV]

cyber - you get an F for comprehension - which isn't surprising

What I'm saying about your graph is that climate scientists are fully aware of it - you are acting like it's the nail in the coffin, putting any discussion about this topic to rest.

What I'm telling you - is that you are wrong that your graph explains everything that is going on with our climate - in fact, it does the opposite. I'm not going to explain it all here - you can just ask Doc I'm sure. Basically the pattern in your graph appears to be due to changes in the earth's orbit and tilt - which to be completely honest no one fully understands - but, and here's the kicker - based on that data alone -we should be experiencing slight cooling right now - this is the oft-quoted by skeptics argument that goes something like " in the 70's you said we were heading for another ice age!!!" However - two factors are in play - the orbital change and the tilt changes are not in sync - the last time this happened, to this degree, was 430,000 years ago - the other is the very thing you are trying to disprove - the warming effect from non-natural CO2 (and other greenhouse gases).

Do you really think that you - Joe Internet guy - found the key to our climate changes, and that this issue hasn't been discussed/analyzed/taken into consideration by the people studying this stuff? Of course you don't - but you toss it into a discussion about nothing more than another 'smear' attempt - which by no coincidence was released - again - right before the start of a global summit on climate change - as if you've unlocked the key to this global hoax?

The accusations that this is all some giant hoax are sounding more and more like the people that say we didn't really land on the moon - that say the WTC buildings were brought down by planted explosives - and that say a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. That's the crowd you are now acting like.

The final irony is that some of you are doing nothing but contradicting yourself - the whole focus of 'climate-gate 1' was that the climate data is wrong/falsified - but you guys are now apparently in agreement that we are experiencing warming - which means Climategate 1/2 means what? That someone deleted some emails? Really?

 

[shira]

I never said Mann withheld data from a FOIA request, I said that Phil Jones (head of CRU) and Eugene Wahl (NCDC) illegally deleted e-mails that were subject to a FOIA request, both have admitted it, it's not even in doubt. You were the one that brought Mann into this as anything other then a link between Jones and Wahl.

Oh, excuse me, I stand corrected and I'll amend my statement:

Unable to substantively question the SCIENCE of ACC, the deniers are engaging in ad-hominem attacks against Jones and Wahl for deleting emails. And they then pretend that this somehow calls into question ACC itself.

But you still don't get it, do you?

 

[cybrsage]

cyber - you get an F for comprehension - which isn't surprising

What I'm saying about your graph is that climate scientists are fully aware of it - you are acting like it's the nail in the coffin, putting any discussion about this topic to rest.

What I'm telling you - is that you are wrong that your graph explains everything that is going on with our climate - in fact, it does the opposite. I'm not going to explain it all here - you can just ask Doc I'm sure. Basically the pattern in your graph appears to be due to changes in the earth's orbit and tilt - which to be completely honest no one fully understands - but, and here's the kicker - based on that data alone -we should be experiencing slight cooling right now - this is the oft-quoted by skeptics argument that goes something like " in the 70's you said we were heading for another ice age!!!" However - two factors are in play - the orbital change and the tilt changes are not in sync - the last time this happened, to this degree, was 430,000 years ago - the other is the very thing you are trying to disprove - the warming effect from non-natural CO2 (and other greenhouse gases).

Close, but slightly off. When you look at the chart in a much larger view (cannot find one that is better in that regard, they tend to vanish), you will see that every other peak is slightly different. For example, three peaks ago was slightly cooler than it is now. Two peaks ago was slightly hotter than it is now. The last peak was slightly cooler than it is now, and was very close to the level reached by the third peak.

If the trend continues (every other peak matching each other), then we can expect the naturally existing cycle to make the planet warmer than it is now prior to it cooling off.

It really is easy to see. No complex gyrations needed. Occum helps out here.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Are you strongly seconding him because of his inaccuracies, or his decision to ignore another poster who always strives for accuracy? I bet you're strongly seconding him because you agree with his message, even if it's wrong. Reminds me of the righties in the 60's that had the "My country right or wrong" bumper stickers, you can get one that says "my science right or wrong" and put it on your bicycle.

I am seconding him because I have the academic and professional background required to understand these things in detail, not just as soundbites from political commentators. Because over the last six years I've been participating in international conferences filled with scientists, regulators, journalists, activists, as well as "normal folk" whose lives are affected by climate change. Because I've attended numerious scientific sessions, discussed with climatologists, economists, public policy experts and *gasp!* politicians. Because, no matter whether you want to believe that man plays a role in changing the climate, the current way of life and our economy are unsustainable in the long-run. Because I work for an energy regulator, and I know what national and global energy needs are, and how bad we need to get zero-emissions power.

When I put all these things in the balance against the insults coming from an random dude on the Internet, all I can do is shrug. You're free to play with your conspiracies. Just as you got me pegged as a "tree-hugging-bad-science activist", I'm free to think that you're a "laissez-faire" traditionalist with insufficient intellectual baggage. But, by all means, go on being as pig-headed as you like. I'm not trying to convince you. Stay derpy!

 

[yllus]

I am seconding him because I have the academic and professional background required to understand these things in detail, not just as soundbites from political commentators. Because over the last six years I've been participating in international conferences filled with scientists, regulators, journalists, activists, as well as "normal folk" whose lives are affected by climate change. Because I've attended numerious scientific sessions, discussed with climatologists, economists, public policy experts and *gasp!* politicians. Because, no matter whether you want to believe that man plays a role in changing the climate, the current way of life and our economy are unsustainable in the long-run. Because I work for an energy regulator, and I know what national and global energy needs are, and how bad we need to get zero-emissions power.

When I put all these things in the balance against the insults coming from an random dude on the Internet, all I can do is shrug. You're free to play with your conspiracies. Just as you got me pegged as a "tree-hugging-bad-science activist", I'm free to think that you're a "laissez-faire" traditionalist with insufficient intellectual baggage. But, by all means, go on being as pig-headed as you like. I'm not trying to convince you. Stay derpy!

For us laypeople then, what's the deal with these e-mails (and the ones before it)? A case of well-intentioned people going a little too far in trying to make sure their warnings are heard and acted upon? It seems undeniable that there was less that pure honesty afoot here.

 

[IGBT]

For us laypeople then, what's the deal with these e-mails (and the ones before it)? A case of well-intentioned people going a little too far in trying to make sure their warnings are heard and acted upon? It seems undeniable that there was less that pure honesty afoot here.

it's a hoax. We all know it. Even the eco-KOOKS know it. It's all about creating revenue from taxes and endless tax payer funded grants to study "nothing" for ever.

 

[Attic]

I am seconding him because I have the academic and professional background required to understand these things in detail, not just as soundbites from political commentators. Because over the last six years I've been participating in international conferences filled with scientists, regulators, journalists, activists, as well as "normal folk" whose lives are affected by climate change. Because I've attended numerious scientific sessions, discussed with climatologists, economists, public policy experts and *gasp!* politicians. Because, no matter whether you want to believe that man plays a role in changing the climate, the current way of life and our economy are unsustainable in the long-run. Because I work for an energy regulator, and I know what national and global energy needs are, and how bad we need to get zero-emissions power.

When I put all these things in the balance against the insults coming from an random dude on the Internet, all I can do is shrug. You're free to play with your conspiracies. Just as you got me pegged as a "tree-hugging-bad-science activist", I'm free to think that you're a "laissez-faire" traditionalist with insufficient intellectual baggage. But, by all means, go on being as pig-headed as you like. I'm not trying to convince you. Stay derpy!

That's weak.

Not meaningful at all for the folks who disagree with your stance. More about the ideas and issues, less about yourself. Many well qualified men/women have been wrong or right on important issues. You'd have to start by acknowledging the emails and not discounting them on basis of your "qualifications" and superiority complex, which is bullshit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

 

[palehorse]

Global Warming is real, and natural; however, there is zero evidence linking mankind to the current warming cycle, or that the cycle itself is any more or less severe/accelerated than similar cycles throughout Earth's entire history.

At the end of the day, that doesn't mean we should ignore our environment or encourage destructive behavior. It simply means that our fiscal investments and environmental regulations need to remain limited/reasonable.

IOW...

-reasonable rules that prevent negligent destruction of our environment (littering, avoidable pollution, limits on deforestation, etc) = good.

-Carbon credits, Cap&Trade, and other extremist nonsense = bad.

-unregulated drilling/mining = bad

-modern less intrusive drilling/mining = good

-encouraged recycling = good

-alternative fuel research = good (for multiple reasons)

-"green" product development (ie. more efficient) = good

-encouraging lower emission engines = good

-tax breaks for any of the above = bad

Etc etc...

 

[monovillage]

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.

I'm glad to see that you agree with wikipedia who for 2 years and countless millions of hits have refused to label "climategate", "climategate". Instead they redirect you to a page that is labeled as: "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". There is no climategate, it is all an illusion, it never happened and all the books about it were never written.

 

[monovillage]

That's weak.

Not meaningful at all for the folks who disagree with your stance. More about the ideas and issues, less about yourself. Many well qualified men/women have been wrong or right on important issues. You'd have to start by acknowledging the emails and not discounting them on basis of your "qualifications" and superiority complex, which is bullshit.

Her reply was this classic:

"Appeal To Anonymous Authority:

an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.

The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor. "

education/job/her participation as a parasite. I hope she has fun at Durban.

 

[cybrsage]

Global Warming is real, and natural; however, there is zero evidence linking mankind to the current warming cycle, or that the cycle itself is any more or less severe/accelerated than similar cycles throughout Earth's entire history.

At the end of the day, that doesn't mean we should ignore our environment or encourage destructive behavior. It simply means that our fiscal investments and environmental regulations need to remain limited/reasonable.

Exactly. We all know polluting is bad. Pretending that mankind is overriding the existing natural cycle which says the temps will continue to increase even if mankind never existed is lame.

-reasonable rules that prevent negligent destruction of our environment (littering, avoidable pollution, limits on deforestation, etc) = good.

-Carbon credits, Cap&Trade, and other extremist nonsense = bad.

-unregulated drilling/mining = bad

-modern less intrusive drilling/mining = good

-encouraged recycling = good

-alternative fuel research = good (for multiple reasons)

-"green" product development (ie. more efficient) = good

-encouraging lower emission engines = good

-tax breaks for any of the above = bad

Etc etc...

Depending on what the tax breaks are aimed at, they can be good. Otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[soundforbjt]

Her reply was this classic:

"Appeal To Anonymous Authority:

an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.

The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor. "

education/job/her participation as a parasite. I hope she has fun at Durban.

Sorry to be off topic, but you just described most of the stories started at Fox news. They are famous for "some people say".

 

[cybrsage]

Sorry to be off topic, but you just described most of the stories started at Fox news. They are famous for "some people say".

You mean the Associated Press does it then...that is where FoxNews gets most of its stories.

It is ok when the other news outlets do it though, amirite?

 

[monovillage]

Sorry to be off topic, but you just described most of the stories started at Fox news. They are famous for "some people say".

All journalists are, it's how they make a living. You are in fact right on topic about the difference between solid scientific evidence and computer modeling.

 

[LunarRay]

Not being a Climatologist I have to rely on what expertise I can bring to the topic along with a bit of 'horse sense'...

I think moving toward a Greener means to generate power, and etc. is a good thing because of the folks who have a lot of what we may need are not us... It is about creating the demand to develop and implement Green stuff as part of an economic up tick. A move away from Exxon to Greenthumb.

So... I don't care if it is true or false. It makes sense to default in the true family... To assume it to be true and therefore move toward the logical and away from what funds the opposite... assuming there is an effort against Climate Warming by those who would be economically affected.