Those hacked climate e-mails: Good scientists, poor conspirators

[Joanne98]

So many things can be said about the hacking of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s e-mails. If nothing else, it shows that the ground rules for scientific and scholarly communication are changing rapidly. The dubious ethics of hacking aside, should we expect science, especially on politically charged issues, to get done with the world looking over researchers’ shoulders? Could you do your job with hecklers in the room?

Island of Doubt has this to say:

What’s interesting is how rapidly the climate denial blogosphere has latched onto this as proof that the entire climatology community are in on a scheme to defraud the world. And why whoever the hackers are would think that this material was actually all that interesting in the first place. The hacking of the data is a worthwhile story, insofar as IT security goes, but the content is just plain banal. All we learn is that scientists are humans after all.

Science historian Spencer Weart comments:

The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers.

RealClimate makes the winning comment, IMO:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

Smart enough to hack, not sophisticated enough to appreciate the daily give-and-take of how science works–is that how we nonscientists are going to approach critical issues? Maybe we can do better than that.

http://futurismic.com/2009/11/23/those-hacked-climate-e-mails-good-scientists-poor-conspirators/

I think there's a secret conspiracy among conservatives to kill their own children and grandchildren!

[paulsby]

1. more denial

scientists colluded to fudge data. and the apologists spring to action

if these hacked emails had been a bunch of corporate executives colluding to screw the consumers via price fixing, there would be an outrage.

but since they are climate scientists, it's okey-dokey that they were fudging data, and conspiring to do same. because lying for a good cause is a-ok.

lol

[notesdev]

2. It's absolutely incredible

I've been digging into what the actual scientific basis of global warming claims are. I was flabbergasted to find out that there's no independent corroboration of these guys' findings, no audit of their work.

All of the temperature reconstructions that show warming depend on a highly flawed statistical technique and a dozen cherry-picked tree cores. Toss those out and try to independently verify the measurements - you can't. They won't share their data, and instrumental data doesn't agree with their conclusions.

Yet this same small group of people has managed to establish themselves as the leaders in their field, and run the IPCC as well... all on the basis of a single-point-of-failure. I couldn't get a change control through for an application on a network with that level of due diligence!

[obliviously]

3. It is unusual

I am hearing almost nothing about these emails are they real or faked? Why the silence? Crickets.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. The scientists were defending the e-mails on NPR.

[RoyGBiv]

8. There is no silence ...

If you read publications from the scientific community, this has been a raging discussion since the moment it became news.

You just won't get much about it on mainstream news except for the bogus idea that these guys were conspiring to present a conclusion without a sound scientific basis.

[notesdev]

10. Verified as real

and, believe it or not, the practices are actually being defended.

At least they have the good sense not to claim they're faked.

Now they got a heck of a lot of 'splainin to do.

[phasma ex machina]

84. Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009

wikileaks

[madville]

17. Didn't you get the memo

It's not Global Warming anymore, it has been renamed Climate Change, much more flexible. If the temperatures go up it's climate change, if they go down, it's climate change. If they stay the same I am fully expecting them to come out with a new crisis, Stagnant Climate, that proves change is desirable until it actually changes, then it will be bad again.

[notesdev]

22. Yeah I got that memo

It's signed "weasel who got caught lying out his ass after hoping no one would check his work"

What these guys got away with is absolutely amazing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. LOL! +10

[Johonny]

5. well actually scientist have been caught falsifying data

from time to time. In fact there has been a growing concern and several high profile cases of late on this very subject. However the discussion in the emails don't clearly show data fudging. They do show discussion of several techniques people have used to reconstruct temperature data. There are valid reasons for throwing out some data sets and valid statistical ways to do data smoothing. The said scientists have already responded to the accusation. If you don't like their response, you can request the raw data or look the published stuff up yourself and do your own temperature reconstruction. For obscure scientific projects it's hard to double check results, however they're so many people now in this field and so many trying to out do the other it would be remarkable for bad and falsified data to exist for very long without discovery.

[Syntheto]

25. You've got that right....

...the best thing to do is to come clean with all the data and publish it; everything... debate it, whatever, but this silly shit of circling the wagons and deleting data rather than sharing it under the Freedom of information act is looking bad.

The people involved fucked up big time. They need to go. Let the data, all of the data, speak for itself.

[sudopod]

52. That's what those little graphs are, honey.

You know, those squiggly lines on those square grids with the pretty colors? Or would you rather have a dump of a few GB of the binary data files from the recorders operated by every climate scientist on the face of the earth?

Fucken hell.

[BrotherLove]

33. I haven't seen any evidence to support this.....

Got any proof? I see a lot of right wing media screaming about how evil these scientists are, but no proof.

This talks about the one email Rush Limbaugh claims shows a hoax.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200051

and includes a NASA scientists explaining the verbiage.

Considering this appears another smear job, where is your proof to support

"scientists colluded to fudge data. and the apologists spring to action"

I don't see it. I do see cherry picked claims all over right wing media similar to the techniques "Creationists" use to attack Evolutionary Science.



Also, why is it evil to hack Sarah Palin, but hacking scientists ok?

[Johonny]

4. I'm amaze anyone cares about this crap

If you can prove global warming is fake. Publish it. Trust me you will win a Nobel Prize and be one of the most famous scientists ever. Or you can pretend some hacked emails are smoking guns to... sigh.

Don't trust scientists. Scientists lie, cheat and steal all the time. Trust science. If global warming is fake it will not survive the scientific process. It has now survived for nearly 30 years as a modern theory. It's evidence has only grown more strong with time. It would be remarkable at this point to be disproved. However it is science and is falsifiable. So do it instead of hacking personal emails and pretending this is like other pretend non-scientific scandals. Do what countless scientist have done to disprove bad theories. Publish real facts that disprove it. Countless bad theories that have been far more popular and even politically more favorable have fallen in the past. Until the deniers can do this, frankly this is just more crying on their part. It has no effect on the real scientific community, but will sway the people that want to believe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. They won't let them publish anything that's the point.

[Viking12]

19. Bullshit. If they had anything worthy of publication it would get published.

Instead, they all play on the computers in their mom's basement and pretend to do science.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

The e-mails are about pressuring the publications to not publish anything that goes against the concensus view. That includes those who think that global climate change is a more SERIOUS threat than what the CONSENSUS believes.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/emails_cru_east_anglia_climate.html?ps=rs


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593

[sudopod]

31. There's an entire publishing industry based around making fun of, er, "suppressing" creationist.s

Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE INCREDIBLY FUCKING WRONG! :D

Sometimes, everyone saying you're wrong doesn't mean there's a cover up. Sometimes, just it means you're wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. So them suppressing studies that say global warming is worse than the consensus view is ok?

[sudopod]

39. Write an article about irreducible complexity

and send it to Cell, then steal the reviewers' email passwords and see what sort of correspondence you get.

It will be very similar. :p

Just because they don't think a respectable journal should waste time with bullshit doesn't make it a cover up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Sounds like a little light needs to be shined on the process. That would clear it up.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. What exactly is wrong with these decisions being made publicly?

[sudopod]

66. To prevent just the sort of thing you accuse them of doing.

If reviewers are anonymous, they can recommend articles for publishing that may cut across the grain from the mainstream, IF there is good reason. This prevents needless shit-flinging drama and accusations of inside baseball, and it's worked damn well for over a century. It's the same reason that our elections have secret ballots.

Anonymous peer review certainly was no bar to any of the big scientific discoveries in all fields of knowledge that built the technological civilization we enjoy today. This is for a simple reason: reality always wins out. Reality doesn't care what your motivations or politics are. Reality doesn't care what you want. Reality is reality. While some devious sorts can pull the wool over the scientific community's eyes for weeks, months, or even years, eventually people will get wise to it because they can't replicate the results, because false results won't reflect reality. There are plenty enough cases of frauds and self-deluded wannabes to prove that.

If you are right, then you will be vindicated in a few decades, because it is clear that global capitalism isn't going to let us do anything to inconvenience it. Reality will win out. If the scientific consensus is right, I'll be right, but I won't be happy, because billions will be dead or dying as their livelihoods and even the very land they live on is destroyed.

I hope to hell you are right.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. If I am right about what?

[sudopod]

72. You think you are being subtle.

But you're not. :/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I believe the climate is changing signifcantly.

How much do humans have to do with that climate change? I'm skeptical that humans have as much impact as some say, I do believe we have an negative impact. I think a healthy dose of skepticism is wise in regards to most matters. Feel free to disagree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. So secrecy about important matters is okay. Did you actually work for Bush?

[sudopod]

91. Do you believe in the secret ballot

for US elections? For unionization votes?

Bush hid things, so that must be evil too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. So you are against EFCA?

[sudopod]

97. Is that really the best you could come up with? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Don't avoid the question. Man up.

[Viking12]

38. If they had anything worthy of publication it would get published.

Your links do not show that any worthwhile science has not been published only that there is increased wrangling. While that is somewhat noteworthy, it's certainly not anything unique in academic publishing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. One of the main advocates for global climate change can't get his stuff published.

He says the consensus view understates the severity of the problem. At least that's what he said on NPR Wednesday night.

[Viking12]

55. Who? Where's your evidence?

You said in your earlier post that your NPR links backed up your claim but they don't. Absolutely no evidence of suppression. Now you're claiming that it was some other appearance on NPR by some un-named advocate?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. I can't remember his name. When the family leaves on Sunday I'll track it down.

[sudopod]

67. I'm sure. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Glad I inspire such confidence.

:)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Aren't you glad you had such confidence in me? I already found it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Found it feel free to apologize. Turns out my claim was 100% true. James Hansen.

When Science Becomes Politics

In fact, one of the world's most celebrated climate scientists says the review system has gotten so distorted, it's even thwarting him. James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute argues that the consensus view of global warming actually understates the risks. In his new book, Storms of my Grandchildren, he writes that he wanted to publish a big paper critical of the consensus view, but he had "no realistic chance of publishing it in a regular scientific journal" because he assumed the reviewers would reject it to defend their centrist point of view.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593

[sudopod]

93. Read the quote.

"...he writes that he wanted to publish a big paper critical of the consensus view, but he had "no realistic chance of publishing it in a regular scientific journal" because he assumed the reviewers would reject it to defend their centrist point of view."

He didn't even bother to send in the paper. He censored himself.

Also, one guy having a negative opinion of the system isn't conclusive proof of anything except that he has an opinion. Moveover, I don't really see what this NPR article has to do with the theorized overhyping of climate change. It seems we're experiencing a bit of "goal post drift."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. So you don't think there is any censorship but it needs to be done in secret? DOH!

[sudopod]

98. Hey, it isn't my fault you're ignorant.

Maybe if you read a book you'd know how scientific progress has happened for around the last hundred years.

Just because you're incredulous doesn't change reality. This isn't just how it's done in climate science, but in every branch of real science. It sounds like you have an argument with the entire scientific establishment rather than just climate scientists. That's fine, but don't try and act like climate change is some big evil conspiracy on account of that, unless you're willing to claim the same about all science done since the peer review system gained acceptance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. So wanting the scientific process to be transparent and peer reviewed is ignorance? LOL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Come to the health forum we have a bunch of anti-vaccine idiots that need your lecture.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. So you think skepticism=ignorance. That's priceless. I'm glad you don't teach.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. James Hansen link provided in post # 87. Game, set , match.

[sudopod]

92. No, he didn't even bother to send it in.

Read the quote. He feared it wouldn't be published, so he never submitted his paper. He censored himself.

Even if it were true, would it be "fascism," or a paradigm with greater than average inertia?

By the way, do you even know what your avatar means? Just curious.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. So if there is no censorship why the need for secrecy?

[sudopod]

99. You are repeating yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7087947&mesg_id=7100537

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. You refuse to answer simple questions.

[sudopod]

108. You refuse to acknowledge them.

[notesdev]

113. Welcome to my world

After a few rounds of this, I've come to the conclusion that the true believers are so brainwashed that they can't debate the topic honestly. Not that some don't want to, but they can't break their programming long enough to see the obvious differences between AGW and science as it is practiced in every other field.

But you know and I know, and there are a lot of other people out there who know, but do not have the patience that you and I have to put up with the name-calling, accusations, fallacious argumentation, social pressure, and other thug tactics that are employed by AGW proponents.

[sudopod]

115. The internet is serious business, lol.

Help help I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

[notesdev]

11. Oh they have

Soon and Baliunas (2003) documented the dramatic divergence between the findings of the CRU/IPCC group and all previous research.

Their reaction? No defense of the science, but rather a political statement 'affirming' their conclusions, written by the same people whose work is in dispute, which global warmists disingenuously point to as 'debunking' Soon. The despicable follow-up was to politically polarize the journal in which it was published through pressure on the publisher. Some of the details of how they maneuvered to get the editor of that journal removed for daring to publish something that contradicted them are in the emails; as are quite a few documents describing how they hijacked the peer-review process elsewhere.

No wonder the propaganda-regurgitators immediately appeal to the authority of peer review. I bet most of them have never heard of the term before, never mind taking the time to verify the authenticity of the process in this field.

Whenever anyone from any other field takes a good look at this stuff they come out horrified that this was accepted as science.

FYI, the burden of proof is on the people who make an assertion, especially an extraordinary assertion. What is being demonstrated here is that global warming doesn't meet any established scientific standard of proof. It doesn't even meet the requirements of scientific method (specifically the requirements to independently verify conclusions and to publish all the data and methodology that supports the conclusions).

Here are the two main sides to the debate:

Pro: http://realclimate.org (run by many of the same people as IPCC/UEA CRU, semi-official mouthpiece often pointed to as authoritative)
Con: http://climateaudit.org

Read them for yourself and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. Any science background you have will immediately inform you as to which group is conducting serious scientific investigation and which is conducting a smoke & mirrors campaign.

[Viking12]

18. Seriously, what planey do you live on?

Because here on earth climate is undeniably changing.

Oh, we also require the use of reason and logic to have scientific discussions, 2 skills you clearly lack.

[notesdev]

21. The issue is not climate change, it is global warming

Nobody disputes the climate is changing; always has, always will.

What is in dispute are the unfounded claims that the temperature is presently rising, and the additional claim that human activity is the cause of the alleged temperature increase. When you look at the math behind the claim, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Or I should say, "if" you look, because I think you are more comfortable in your prejudged conclusion than you are in actually finding out what the truth of the matter is.

[Viking12]

23. So you're claiming that the earth's temperature is not currently rising?

Are you fucking serious?..and you expect people to listen to you when you spout bullshit like that?

[notesdev]

27. What's the problem?

The claim that the Earth is warming is based on cherry-picked data and invalid statistical techniques. Only ONE source claims this warming, which is the source that just got exposed in the scandal now being referred to as Climategate.

Satellite temperature data does not show a warming trend in this decade. That's the plain fact of the matter. Claims of warming are scientifically unfounded.

[Viking12]

29. It's dozens of lines of data that show warming.

CRU, GISS, UAH, RSS, instrumental and satellite records plus multiple lines of biological and physical temp proxies all show warming. You have no idea what you're. talking about

[notesdev]

30. Let's talk verification

CRU data we now know is manipulated to achieve a desired result (there's more than enough evidence in the document leak to establish this with no reasonable room for doubt).

In terms of biological proxies, the ones used are tree rings and bristlecone pines. Strongly disputed are the validity of using them as temperature proxies in the first place (at odds with plant physiology) as well as the data selection and statistical analysis. In my own investigation of these, I found that those who use these as proxies, when put to the direct question, do not even bother to defend the validity of using them as proxies.

Satellite records show the opposite of what you think - they show cooling, not warming, so they undermine the assertion. Instrumental records diverge in an interesting manner; sea temperatures show no warming, but land records do. This is more likely attributable to urban heat island effect than actual global temperature changes.

Dig into the records for yourself. Find me an independently-sourced global temperature reconstruction that agrees with CRU and is not directly related to them nor dependent on CRU results. I think you will be surprised at just how difficult it is to find confirmation of the global warming assertion.

[Viking12]

32. You're just making shit up.

A) The e-mails do not show the data was manipulated. I know Hannity told you they do but as usual, he's wrong.

B) There are dozens of biological and physical proxies that are not tree rings. You're clearly ignorant of the mountains of evidence, animal migrations, retreating glaciers, ice cores, shifting growing zones all clearly show warming. Turn off Rush and read some actual science.

C) Satellites do not show cooling. You're literally making shit up.
Through July 2009
RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.153 °C/decade
UAH analysis finds +0.12°C/decade.

D) Of course the land shows faster warming than the oceans. That does not mean the oceans are not warming. Do you know anything about thermal capacity?

[notesdev]

34. You're ignoring the evidence

a) The e-mails are EXPLICIT in admitting manipulation, it's even documented in the code that makes the scary warming charts

b) Since I actually am reading the science, I know that IF there are other proxies they are NOT being used in the temperature reconstructions that claim warming. Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence from many other fields directly contradicts the incorrect claim that today's temperatures are unprecedented over the last 1000 years.

c) One of your own favored sources contradicts your claim.

So all you're doing is convincing me that you really haven't looked at the actual numbers and are just parroting what you've been told.

d) I do know about thermal capacity, which is why the urban heat island effect is a far more likely cause of the divergence in land-based measurements. So are the land-based measurements a result of a well-known phenomenon that has been studied for well over a century? Or evidence of an impending climate disaster? Occam's Razor cuts this argument to shreds.



Now, even if there is a warming trend established (which there is most certainly not), one then has to ask oneself whether the change is due to natural variability. Which brings us to 'getting rid of the MWP' and all the sordid activities surrounding that initiative.

Really, you would be well served to examine the global warming claims with a critical eye, as would everyone. If it is good science it will stand up against even the most pointed and interested criticism. What we see when we look behind the curtain is that this fashionable catastrophism cannot meet that test.

[Viking12]

37. You are not reading the science. You're reading a RW blog.

That you don't know the difference speaks volumes about your intelligence and character.

Here's the UAH temp data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Calculate the trend yourself. Get back to me when you're done and tell me what the trend is, ok.

[notesdev]

48. Ah, now you admit your point of view is politics not science based

"RW blog" ha!

Doesn't agree with your point of view therefore it's the enemy and is to be dismissed out of hand. Never mind that the actual data comes right from one of your favored sources.

That's politics, not science. Real science addresses criticism, it doesn't attack it like it's running a campaign.

[Viking12]

53. So you don't know how to calculate a trend on your own?

I do, anybody with a basic math education does; that's why I don't need to rely on blogs to understand what the trend is. I say 'watts' is a RW blog because it is. It's not that they 'disagree' with my point of view, it's that they're flat out wrong 98% of the time but you're in no position to be able to determine fact from fiction so you lap up their conspiracy theory bullshit. Learn some math, learn lot's of science and maybe someday you'll be able to discuss this issue intelligently.

[sudopod]

54. Math is hard. :p nt

[notesdev]

57. Cut the nonsense

I can calculate a trend just fine, but I'm not going to fish through your unformatted data dump to do so.

I don't see you calculating any trends out of it, maybe you can't? Or maybe you know it's a thankless chore to try and format that data into usable form and are deliberately trying to waste my time on it? Hmmm... gee, I wonder which it is? If this were the first time I ever argued with a deliberate time-waster on the Internet, I might be confused on that point.


With regards to various blogs... I've checked them out on all sides of the debate... it's really easy to see who shows their work and who doesn't. It'll take you one click each to figure out which side does which.

No need to continue to posture like you actually know something, any basic education on scientific method would be more than enough to show that the global warming hysteria is a bunch of Chicken Little catastrophism. They need to show the data and show their work, and get it verified by an independent source. Since you won't bother to actually check that the (extremely expensive and fascist in character) global warming nonsense doesn't meet that basic scientific standard to be taken seriously, I think I've wasted enough time on your cargo cult mentality.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingofalldems]

64. Calculate? You mean like when you calculated

there were a million and a half teabaggers on the Mall this year? Remember that? I do.

[notesdev]

83. Why yes I remember quite well

Me, having bothered to check it out for myself, got a lot closer to the actual than you and everyone else who got their opinion spoon-fed to them by a major media television personality.

And in this case, I bothered to check for myself, and lo and behold, I find the reality differs from what the noisy lightbox claims it is.

Go figure. I mean I don't mean to be a heretic here and claim people might lie for money, because we all know nobody does that. Why, no less an expert than Ben Bernake himself told me the economy was fine.

[Kingofalldems]

111. So I guess you are still claiming 1 1/2 million teabaggers?

And everyone except Beck and his ilk are lying?

[Viking12]

82. Then do it. Calculate the trend. Prove me wrong.

It is formatted. You're just too stupid to recognize the format.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Exactly. Dissent is not to be tolerated. DU's own little form of fascism.

[Kingofalldems]

65. Do you agree with Democrats about anything?

Just about every RWer of note claims that those who warn of global warming are simply Communists, trying to destroy our way of life. Do you believe them?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. I didn't know Democrats wanted studies in support of global warming suppressed. I disagree.

[sudopod]

69. see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7087947&mesg_id=7100471

[sudopod]

76. Why was that message cut? :(

:(

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Because you have trouble obeying the rules.

[phasma ex machina]

85. McIntyre's (climateaudit.org) been a voice in the wilderness for over a decade.

A decade ago he demonstrated how CRU's software produced a hockey stick graph from random noise.

[Syntheto]

26. If Climate Change skeptics...

...had been caught red-handed lying out the ass and making shit up like these folks have, it would be on the news 24/7, and taken as proof that Man-made Climate Change is a fact.

We all know this, and I suspect a lot of people are pissed off because it didn't happen like that.

Publish all the data, make all the databases available for inspection, debate it, whatever. If the planet is in such great danger, then make the information available for the entire world to peruse, instead of this 'just take our word for it because we're really a lot smarter than you, and we don't have time to explain it to you peasants because you wouldn't understand' bullshit.

If the 'scientists' involved don't become immediately transparent, then they'll have 'proved' that it's all been a scam, whether it is or isn't.

[Canuckistanian]

56. Trust science, but don't trust scientists?

Sooo.... who do we trust? Are over 90% of the climate scientists wrong?

If you have any evdience that climate scientists are "lying, cheating or stealing", please, speak up.

[JonQ]

80. Many of the emails detail

ways to prevent skeptics from publishing their data.

Sorry but once scientists collude to make sure opposing viewpoints are not heard then it is no longer science. To be science it must be open to criticism at all times.

[JonQ]

81. Frankly I started getting nervous when the default defense was:

the science is settled, we have a consensus so stop asking questions.

Sorry but what?

[certainot]

116. proof, science means nothing when you have 1000 uncontested radio stations

that's where the real damage is being done.

limbaugh did 3 straight days on this - that it is proof positive of a hoax. it doesn't matter that he is an irrational fool, the problem is he and the talkers that follow him up later in the day and all next week will make it impossible for obama to get any GOP support on what should be a no-brainer issue. and some of the red state blue dogs will be scared off by the screams of HOAX!

until environmental groups figure out they need to picket limbaugh stations and boycott the local sponsors the talk radio monopoly is going to do for global warming action what it did for health care- another no brainer issue that gets dems whining about the obama admin inefectiveness, while they let limbaugh and sons pound away.

[Andronex]

6. remember the vanishing Ozone Layer...

and how we would all die from skin cancer, 24/7 in the mainstream media the scientific community warning us of impending disaster, crop failures, mass starvation unless we banned Chlorofluorocarbon (freon) like yesterday, satellite photos of the hole in Ozone layer, the sky is falling, the sky is falling !

It so happens that Dupont who had a worldwide patent on the production of freon was very much behind this campaign for the banning of Chlorofluorocarbon, this may sound confusing at first until you understand that it's patent was coming to an end in the early 90's and CFC's could then be produced world wide and more cheaply outside of Dupont's control. So tanks to "environmentalists" CFC's which is a rather harmless product got banned world wide to be replaced by a much more expensive, toxic and corrosive refrigerant HFC-134a a hydro fluorocarbon, and you guessed it Dupont got another 50 year patent for this new product and kept it's worldwide lucrative monopoly of refrigerant intact!

By the way Chlorofluorocarbons are heavier than the ambient air so how it got into the stratosphere damaging the ozone layer is still not explained but then you can't argue with science :eyes:

The scientific community is not above corruption, and unless they toe the line they're not getting their research grants, and their work won't be published in scientific journals. The ones who controls the purse strings decides what is science...People are better off using their common sense than believing anything from "scientists".

[tkmorris]

12. What utter codswallop

About the only thing you have correct here is that DuPont had a patent on Freon, which was due to expire in 1979. The United States began banning them in 1978. DuPont was not behind the banning however, they campaigned quite heavily against it. Once the US started banning them in other applications besides aerosol cans and the rest of the world did likewise DuPont wised up and prodused alternatives they claimed were not as harmful to the Ozone Layer. What else would you expect them to do? Of course it turns out that HCFC's ARE better, though not as good as DuPont claimed.

As to your claim (which you no doubt ripped off from some bloviating anti-science nitwit) that CFC's couldn't POSSIBLY get into the stratosphere because they are heavier than air, do you even remember basic high school science class? For example, iron is heavier than water and yet I have spent a lot of effort over the last decade filtering it out. How could that be? You could test air (in the lower atmosphere at least) for CFC's yourself if you wanted to bother. Go ahead, prove they aren't there and set the world on fire. Forget it, just know that air contains a lot of contaminants that are heavier than it is, yet there they are. Get someone with more patience than I to explain it to you.

It amazes me how often people who don't understand basic science claim that so-called "common sense" trumps it somehow. It shouldn't, I have been burned too often by underestimating people's capacity to wallow in their ignorance, but somehow it still does.

[Andronex]

14. Maybe your'e too young to remember...

but it seems there wasn't a day during that period they were not predicting the end of the world as we knew it, now you won't find a single news story about it anymore.

<snip>

The irony of the alleged evils of CFCs is that natural sources of chlorine far outweigh industry's contribution. Remember, Rowland and Molina's Theory asserts that chlorine, not CFCs, destroy ozone. Evaporating oceans emit 600 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere per year. Although precipitation washes out most chlorine, large amounts still reach the stratosphere.<14> Even high school science students would be aware that seawater salt is comprised of sodium chloride. Once the sodium chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.<15>

Erupting volcanoes can emit hundreds of millions of tons of chlorine. These eruptions directly inject chlorine into the stratosphere<16>. Mt. Erebus in Antarctica began an active cycle of volcanic eruptions in 1972 that has been continuous to this day.<17> Mt. Erebus pumps 50 times more chlorine into the atmosphere annually than does an entire year's production of CFCs. <18> This is not to say that Mt. Erebus' emissions created the Antarctic ozone hole. Admittedly, the science is still uncertain as to all the factors influencing the fluctuating Antarctic ozone hole. However, concealed by the media, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole was not a new discovery. Its existence had been known for more than 30 years. Scientists had discovered the anomaly in the years 1956-57 when ozone spectrophotometers were placed in Antarctica for the first time.<19>

<snip>

Many people may be unaware of both Du Pont and ICI's vested financial interest in the banning of CFCs. These two corporations have worked together for decades, maintaining their dominance in the world chemical market.<31> The Du Pont Corporation's monopoly patent on CFCs was about to expire and become public domain. It was therefore in Du Pont's interest to sponsor the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit conference, and surprise, surprise; Du Pont secured the patent on the replacement HFC 134a gas.<32> The Montreal Protocol to limit CFCs was revised and on 11th February, 1992, President Bush announced a ban on CFCs by 1995.<33>

Under the ownership of the Bronfman family, Du Pont's earnings from CFC replacements have amounted to many billions of dollars. Edgar Bronfman personally may have made more than $10 billion during the early 1990s alone.<34> Interestingly, the Bronfmans have made considerable contributions to the environmental movement. In fact, Du Pont and ICI (along with many other multinational corporations) have a close working relationship with the green movement. One of the heirs of the ICI family fortune, Lord Peter Melchett, is the executive director of Greenpeace in Great Britain. Greenpeace, with an annual income of more than $100 million worldwide has been actively campaigning against the use of CFCs.<35>

<http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/230899.htm>

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

16. TK

You're my new favorite DUer...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

50. TZ's right abou the shrinking ozone hole.

Satellite imagery from 1995 to 2004 if you click on Figure 5.

http://www.gse-promote.org/gallery/o3hole/o3hole.html

Who are you going to believe, Rush Limbuagh or your lying eyes?

[sudopod]

40. XD nt

[BoneDaddy]

36. Interesting

ty.. it really all comes down to money, doesn't it... That and control.

I wonder how many liberals could possibly imagine being duped. I find it interesting that their biggest criticism of the "other side" is their lockstep behind religion. But liberalism has their own religion too. I lean left but I am so amazed at how quickly the religions of the old are replaced by the new ideologies.

[sudopod]

44. Yes, we all want to elect Al Gore our high priest so he can ritually sacrifice your H3 to Gaia.

That's what this is all about.

[BoneDaddy]

75. You mean the Volkswagon I drive

because I am concerned about emissions? If you even bothered to read my post or even think about it, you would realize I was not advocating what you think I was.

All I am saying is that any unyielding adherence to any thinking is very similar to that of fundamentalist religion.

[sudopod]

77. That's true

but in the case of the Ozone layer and global warming, the evidence is about as concrete as that for gravity and evolution. It's happening. If you look at my reply to the anti-ozone layer depletion post, you can see some evidence of that in the form of a study documenting skyrocketing rates of skin cancer in Australia. Sometimes, the majority is right.

[BoneDaddy]

78. Never said it wasn't

I always try and keep the door open however as things have been known to change.

I am on the same side as you.

[TZ]

47. Your post is proof that liberals can be

Just as stupid and scientifically illiterate as the right. Anyone who equates science and religion is a fool who has not one clue

[BoneDaddy]

74. Wow

it is deeper than I thought. Science is a tool. As we have seen before within a simple 100 years how people can think that science has all the answers. Just look at how the public and scientists adhered to the Newtonian school of thought even though the modern science of the times, Einstein, for one was proving the opposite. Science is as time bound as religion can be and people will stick with it regardless of what the facts may be.

I believe in global warming or climatic change, all I am saying is we need to always be cautious about our own resistance to what may be changing.

[sudopod]

42. I wonder how Dow gave all those Austrailians skin cancer?

The sneaky bastards!

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-110446358.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Is it true that tanning beds have significantly contributed to the incidences of skin cancer?

[ConsAreLiars]

13. If nothing else, your post surely woke up

and agitated some of the denier-becker-inhofer-corporatists.

[Prometheuspan]

49. Dilbert and pointy haired boss of climate science

Actually, perusing the emails shows that there was some amount of effort by pointy haired boss to get people to try to hide
the cooling trend. The sad thing is, if you understand the science, all of the other contributing factors which the denialists like to use as footballs to carry off and try to make denialist arguments over would be working together right now to create a cooling
trend. So this is simply a very weak cooling trend.

The other thing which pointy haired boss missed is that after the tipping point is a flat new homeostasis, unti the next new tipping point is reached.

Obviously the pointy haired boss didn't care what the explanations for the cooling were, he just wanted it to be getting always hotter.

[sudopod]

51. Jeebus

you probably thought that was clever.

[JonQ]

79. Bad scientists and bad conspirators

if they altered data in any way to make the conclusions come out differently then they should have then they are bad scientists and should be fired and never allowed to work in research again.

This and the NIWA thing disgusts me. Falsifying data is about the worst sin there is in science.

[phasma ex machina]

86. Do you believe a five-day forecast?

Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there's Reid Bryson. At age 86, he's still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology-now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences-in the 1970s he became the first director of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor-created, the U.N. says, to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment." He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. ...

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he's as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth's climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet's existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

"I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

"Climate's always been changing and it's been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past," he told us in an interview this past winter. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?"

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air." ...

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds-water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: "Do you believe a five-day forecast?" ... - The Faithful Heretic

[sudopod]

100. libertymatters.org

:3

[phasma ex machina]

109. Strawman. 103 sites cite the story originally published by the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News

The Faithful Heretic

[sudopod]

110. 1) Do you know what a "stawman arguement" even is?

2) Some of the stuff in that article doesn't make any sense.

"Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? "

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.


What? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/">Studies by folks who aren't speaking off the cuff to a publication that includes pie recipes seem to indicate that water vapor does dominate, but the ratio of the impact of H20 and C02 is not .001. Moreover, the concentration of moisture in the air increases as a function of atmospheric temperature, so H2O amplifies the effect of the other greenhouse gasses.

Also, comparing 5 day forecasts to climate is ridiculous, they're entirely different things. It's the difference between a spot measurement of a quantity and its average over a long span of time.

[phasma ex machina]

112. When you ignore a story and instead try to draw attention to its irrelevant URL, that's a straw man.

but the ratio of the impact of H20 and C02 is not .001.

You and your "gavin" are mixing apples and oranges.

Dr Bryson's real gas model ratio takes the form of molar content/volume.

OTOH "gavin" touts a ratio of mass. Similar to arguing that by virtue of
weight alone, a bowling ball fills a bedroom.

[notesdev]

114. Technically

that's "circular logic"

but no biggie... they throw out so many logical fallacies it's hard to keep track of them all.