Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

To all the naysayers out there you guys gotta get a grip. Just about every scientific principle out there at one time or another (no matter how mainstream it may be now) had legions of detractors. My own field of Geology from the first mineralogist that started walking through the countryside collecting rocks and making associations to continental drift and everything in between the pioneers had to swim upstream to make their points and they were derided for it and many died that way. That's what makes it science. Eventually when others duplicate the work and reach the same conclusions it becomes accepted and of course sometimes guys get it wrong and sometimes long accepted principles fall by the wayside no matter how many years or decades it takes. Just that in this case we might not have decades to prove or disprove. Anyone out there want to make the ultimate bet? I live at 5600 feet I'm not worried. You guys on the coasts and low lying areas?

just think, if the global warming crowd is right, how much ocean front property will become available...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

just think, if the global warming crowd is right, how much ocean front property will become available...

How did you do in math - the answer is 'less than the amount that will disappear'. And since geometry is not on your side you should now be madly attempting to hack my email server in order to discredit me.
Mr. sparq will surely help you because he also has trouble distinguishing between discredit and disproval:

Originally Posted by sparq

I am sorry to disappoint but I do not need to do that. Those scientists did quite enough to discredit themselves by employing methods that have nothing to do with science but that have politics written all over them.

I really wish some of you not only read the Bible but think about what they read and perhaps begin to apply it in your life (Matthew 7:3-5).
And for those who listen but do not hear I will translate - your favorite point about political agenda motivated bias makes your posts completely ineffective.

see? this is why I don't come in here. everyone thinks they understand what's going on.

Originally Posted by bassguy

see? this is why I don't come in here. everyone thinks they understand what's going on.

Here's what I do understand about the behavior of the major climate-change scientists in the world (and this is not beyond the understanding of any reasonably intelligent and educated adult -- you don't need to be a rocket scientist, nor even a climate scientist, to understand these things):

• They found it necessary to "hide the decline" in world-wide temperature averages over the past decade. The fact that they resorted to a "trick" to do this is not the issue so don't cloud the issue with the semantics of the word "trick".
• They attempt to obfuscate the truth: "I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back". (MWP="Medieval Warm Period" which puts an inconvenient bump in the temperature curve. Essentially, I think the proposal is to average over a longer time period to mask the peak.)
• They are not sure about things themselves: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
• They want to hide their actions: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
• They are overly emotional about this: "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." In other words it is disingenuous to call the skeptics the hot-heads.
• They use underhanded methods to curb any dissent: "I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." and "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor." The effect would be to make it hard to get dissent published in peer-reviewed journals thus making the dissent seem less accepted and mainstream.
• They use cherry-picked data to support their conclusions. Google for stories on "Russian tree ring data global warming" about how this data was manipulated to produce the infamous (and now disowned/discredited) "hockey stick" graph that was used so successfully to raise the level of concern about global warming. As is usual, the "level of concern" never goes down when the data is shown to be in error.

The above is politics not science.

The point isn't whether or not the climate is changing-- it is and has been for millions of years and will continue to do so. We are in the midst of a long-term warming period but are not yet as warm as we were before the last ice age (10-20 thousand years ago) nor even as warm as some earlier short-term warm periods (e.g. the MWP). This is not bad! the retreat from the last ice-age is probably the main thing that has made today's civilization even possible.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

The above is politics not science.

Wow.

Someone actually read and understood the data and correspondence.

I reckon that makes two of us ...

If the scientists were actually conducting science they may have been able to come to a new conclusion: That global warming itself may also lead to cooling.

Bear with me here.

I saw a show on Nova, or some such about the Gulf stream, and how water temps affect the "pump" that drives the Gulf Stream. As the ice caps melt, it cools the water, which leads to a reduction in the "pump" that drives the Gulf Stream.

So, it would appear that there is some form of a self-correcting system here, no? The melting icecaps cool the water, which reduces the northerly Gulf Stream flow of warm water, leading to a drop in temperatures.

I am, of course, broadly paraphrasing, and drawing my own conclusions here. But there is the possibility that there is global warming, and that global warming (more appropriately called climate change) may also manifest itself as a drop in temperatures, not just an increase in temperatures.

Just throwing that idea out there.

As far as climategate itself goes, you can take a look at the "Science vs. PseudoScience" thread to get an idea of what high regard I hold research scientists.

Luckily this type of behavior is isolated to a small subgroup interested in climate study, and does not occur in fields such as evolutionary studies, etc.

Hold the phone.....what just a doggone second!


I was enjoying Denmason's humorous video, until I came across the following part:


Shanghai underwater?!

Where wil I get my precious Gold Dollars?????

I've changed my mind! Global warming must be stopped at all costs!!!

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Here's what I do understand about the behavior of the major climate-change scientists in the world ...

In case anyone thinks things have been taken out of context, here is a place where all the email can be found. It has a search function...

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Originally Posted by bassguy

see? this is why I don't come in here. everyone thinks they understand what's going on.

Obviously I know nothing about you, I do not know what is going on in your head, but what you are saying either means that you know better than us (with a hint of not so nice sarcasm so please stop down from the pedestal and share your wisdom with us), or that we should just shut up and go on with whatever is happening around us, or that I completely missed your point.

I would be grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thank you.

I haven't read the emails. I haven't even read about them.... just the snippet I heard on NPR on the scandal. It seems from what little I've read .... and it ain't much .... that the majority of scientists in the field believe that the by products of human habitation on the earth have contributed to global warming. I don't find that difficult to believe.

I recall when scientists and medical professionals said that cigarette smoking was a major cause of lung disease. The tobacco companies found many scientists and medical professionals to dispute the claims. The devil can quote the scriptures to his own uses.

My grandfather was in his late 70s when he told me to believe half of what you see and nothing that you read. Coming from Czarist Russia to the USA in '08 he had seen a lot. I'm as skeptical as the next guy but I think there is something to humans being a major cause of global warming and just because some 'true believers' become over zealous and 'salt the mine' that doesn't mean it isn't so.