'Climategate' probe mostly vindicates scientists

[monovillage]

You can always read what the journal New Scientist (not a skeptical journal) has to say about this bogus panel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ut-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html

or you can find out that through FOI requests that the Oxburgh panel that was "investigating" Phil Jones and Hadley/CRU used 11 papers that they consulted with Phil Jones before using them.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/18/more-on-oxburghs-eleven.html

 

[alkemyst]

sad part is if they discover our world is failing there is a lot of reason to hide that fact from the masses and plan to self-preserve accordingly.

People believe there are no secrets kept in our government / science anymore...they are delusional.

 

[Atheus]

No that's not what I'm getting at all. I've seen the charts that go way back and all I see is great variations in our climate with tons of changes before humans existed and after we existed.

That is like going to court and arguing a death is not a murder, on the grounds that someone else died last year, and _that_ case wasn't a murder...

I see scientists claiming one thing, but not only unwilling to give up the raw data the gathered to come up with their theory/projection/etc they've completely destroyed it.

Destroying the data is so wrong because it is not proper scientific procedure. It is an arguement FOR proper science not AGAINST science or scientists.

I see people who are pushing this "agenda" getting richer and richer every year while ignoring the words they preach. That's what I see.

Do you really? Like who? AFAIK the scientists working at UEA are payed exactly what they would have been paid if they had come up with the opposite viewpoint or no viewpoint at all. Meanwhile Exxon gave over £1m last year to groups which campaign against climate science and environmentalism.

do the scientists who make these projections, ie Hansen, take into account every possible thing that can have an effect and every possible variation of that?

Of course not, and neither do you. In fact, you take into account a lot less than they do. And you have no idea how to process that information properly. And when you make a mistake there's nobody to check your facts like they did with the climategate researchers. So... why should anyone listen to you again...?

 

[Atheus]

You can always read what the journal New Scientist (not a skeptical journal) has to say about this bogus panel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ut-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html

That is an editorial piece and does not represent New Scientist. However it does ring true to me.

 

[shira]

Well I look back at charts that map temps over the last 100k+ years and I don't really see anything to worry about when looking at our little blip, it looks normal. It's not until you take a glance at the most recent 200 years do you see anything that makes people go "ZOMG!"

Shira answer me this, do the climate scientists who make projections for our future climate take into account everything that could have an effect on our climate and every variation of each?

I don't know the details of what they do or don't take into account, and neither do you or any other non-climatologist. If I had to guess, the models probably take into account the climate drivers determined to be most significant, and over time more and more drivers are incorporated.

When I read climatologists state that their models are following climate observations over time pretty accurately, I have no basis for assuming they're lying. You - on the other hand - seem to think that unless every possible climate driver is modeled right now, the models are worthless, regardless of what the studies are telling us. That's a pretty outrageous position.

 

[monovillage]

Notice that Shira won't respond to the fact that Phil Jones the head of CRU deleted e-mails that were subject of a FOI request (illegal btw) and urged other members of the hockey team to also destroy e-mails subject of a FOI request (also illegal btw) and that the Muir-Russel and Oxburgh panel never questioned them on it, never mentioned them and pretended they never happened. Can you say whitewash?

 

[bfdd]

*yawn* Like I said it is absolutely impossible for them to even conceive every possible thing that could have any sort of effect on the government then include those variables into their models. To the other guy about scientists getting paid, I was talking about Gore and such.