...everyone knows global warming is a huge loads of bollocks?
More University of East Anglia emails from the “Climategate” era have been posted online ahead of the upcoming Durban climate talks. The emails, wrapped up in a 170 MB zipfile hosted at this http://dump.kurthbemis.com/ site (having apparently been removed from the Russian site to which they were originally posted), represent …
...everyone knows global warming is a huge loads of bollocks?
Don't think that its bollocks. Climate changes, always has.
I do think that the incessant moralising and apparently fraudulent behaviour is just bang out of order.
I am satisfied that the evidence of global warming is sound - it really is happening. What I _AM_ seriously questioning is the evidence showing that the global warming is majority-caused by human action. And regardless of whether it is or isn't, the important question is whether it is plausible that we can in fact do anything significant to affect it or whether the most prudent course of action is to do what we can to mitigate it's effects.
The politicians know global warming's bollocks but it's the best tax raising scam ever invented. So what if the earth has cooled when it should have got warmer, just call it climate change and carry on as before.
The scientists also know it's bollocks but when it's a sure fire way of getting funded, why upset the apple cart? And when your mates all belong to the same club and share the same belief, peer review's not going to be a problem is it?
Shame the computer models can never get it right, but hey, just blame it on the computers and ask for more cash for better ones!
"The scientists also know it's bollocks but when it's a sure fire way of getting funded, why upset the apple cart? "
This is just hot air, though. If you write a proposal for yet another study that is likely to show that climate change is occurring and is caused by human activity, you'll be told to wait in line behind all the other guys doing the same thing. But if there were a credible scientist with a credible proposal for a credible study which would show that either climate change is not real or is not caused by humans, they'd be deluged with funding from the Koch Brothers and the rest.
Saying exactly the same thing as 99% of other scientists is no way to riches.
Most people agree that climate change/global warming is occurring - they just can't agree on the cause.
It's like their house is on fire and they're arguing about how it started instead of calling the fire brigade...
and the kind of academic research on climate under discussion here is no way to riches.
Have a look here, at a job ad: http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ADO573/academic-vacancies/
Note the professorial minimum salary. A numerate PhD could probably earn more working in a bank within a year.
Note that also that HW do not say "we'll double your salary if you do climate research and support the AGW consensus". If anyone has that kind of money to throw around, it isn't academia.
I really don't get this whole "they're only making it up to get money" thing.
Academic research scientists, at least in the UK, don't make money. If anyone were in academic research purely to get rich, then they're too stupid to get rich anyway. If you want to get rich, you go and work in commercial science, or do consultancy or something.
I have relatives who work in the UEA CRU, are on the IPCC, Nobel Laureates the both of them - about as high-level as climate science gets and they don't bank anything approaching serious money. They do alright, but nothing on even a fairly crappy middle manager at a moderately successful business. Most of the money they do make is from teaching rather than research anyway.
On the other hand, I know a couple of people who are commercial researchers and they take home serious wad. Anyone from CRU could walk into the commercial sector tomorrow and easily double their pay packet, yet they choose not to.
You can, if you wish, dispute the science. But please don't doubt the motivation of the scientists.
I welcome your downvotes.
Probably not. All the data points to the climate changing (the current trend appears to be moving everything towards the extreme).
What's causing it? Well, that's where a small amount of bollocks rears its head because the climate is a rather complex thing and even if it very simple, it's a massive feedback system as chaos theory has a few things to say about it (i.e. it's not accurately predictable as it is sensitive to initial conditions).
So is it all/mostly natural? Possibly, at least in part (e.g. volcanoes, sun cycle etc)
Is it all/mostly man-made? Possibly.
Is the consequence off getting it wrong a "Bad Thing"(tm)? Absolutely!
So which gamble do we take? Carry on as now and run the risk of committing species suicide; or tighten our belts slightly, stop being total dicks, and try to tread as softly as possible? If the major portion is natural, our measures will have little effect; but if we ARE the major cause (which seems likely) then we might just yank our collective asses out of the fire.
Sitting around and doing sweet F.A. is not really an answer.
The funny thing is, the study that was funded by the Koch brothers found evidence for climate change - see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/koch-brother-funded-study_b_1032439.html
"I really don't get this whole "they're only making it up to get money" thing."
It's not the scientists that are direct beneficiaries. Rather it is those that sponsor them that have a Vested Interest.
The scientists benefits by having grant money and the opportunity to indulge in their experiments.Money is not their driver but rather accolade/recognition and acknowledgement.
Their sponsors moneterily benefit by having their industry validated and approved, and then blessed with business.
Go research the Club of Rome 1991 Report.
Are the by-products from burning fossil good for anyone, no. So maybe we are causing it, maybe not, but why not ween ourselves off of non-renewable sources while we still have choices.
I have been in a city where the daily forecast advises that you avoid going outside as much as possible. So we need to doing something about air quality anyway, even if it isn't the cause of the ice caps melting or crazy weather.
I do want to make one thing absolutely clear though, there should be non of this "carbon credit crap", the last thing we need in this world is another stock-market style entity where people can learn to play the market to fill their pockets instead of keeping the air clean.
they'd be more generous, profligate or whatever.
Really, apply some logic, if the scientists are not getting much, their unnamed and largely mythical sponsors" are not giving much. If they expected to get large advantage through the science, they'd be funding it largely.
yet the earths temperature is higher than it was.
if only i had your superior intelect and insight i'm sure i could make sense of it
(why do the words 'wit' and 'fuck' spring to mind)
and the most beligerent arguer is the one in whos name the house in insured
but the nuts are jolly nice :-)
like the CC naysayers and the oil industry you mean :-D
This is exactly right. It is POLLUTION that is the point. Climate is what it is and we can do bugger all about it. It's always struck me as a tad arrogant for anyone to believe that humankind can change it in either direction. We could call it the King Canute syndrome. There are forces much, MUCH bigger than us. That big fiery ball in the sky, for one. Volcanoes for another. We can do something about pollution. Let's try and solve the right problem.
"You can, if you wish, dispute the science. But please don't doubt the motivation of the scientists."
Yep, what would motivate them obfuscate the truth, pray tell.
Bet I can attract more downvotes than you ;)
"It's like their house is on fire and they're arguing about how it started instead of calling the fire brigade"
Disingenuous in the extreme. The fire brigade can undoubtedly fight the fire although perhaps not defeat it. It is highly questionable whether raising the cost of electricity or general taxation will achieve the same for climate change. Utter shite.
The only disingenuous thing about it is your post.
From my perspective, the predominant 'theme' of the Climategate I tranche was the group effort to manipulate the message, along with many examples of 'groupthink' behaviour ( 'mind-guarding', etc. ) in the name of maintaining 'consensus' .
Along with many references to " the cause" , Tranche II has a lot of highly specific discussion of how to avoid required responses to an early FOI request. (The purported avalanche of ~'vexatious' FOI requests were arguably elicited by the initial UEA stonewalling of Mr. Holland's initial modest requests).
Mr. Holland was asking for copies of non-published 'wordsmithing' negotiations from the 4th IPCC report, which by IPCC rules are disallowed (but clearly did occur).
This led to the (tranche I) 'Delete all your email' note which was minimized in the various 'oversight' committees.
For example, from the 'readme' at kurthbemis;
" /// Freedom of Information ///
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.
Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing “David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which you’ll already have.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data. "
I wonder if the posters are interested in the actual science, or just getting their point across regardless. I can see no reason to have held any emails back (if genuine) if it were merely for interests in the science.
Real scientists discuss, debate, argue, put up theories to be knocked down. Not present a fait accompli that's going to cost us lots of money but make lots of money for land-owning upper class types. Types who just happen to have links to the government which is making us jump through hoops for a negligible effect on world-wide carbon output.
Yep. Once they've systematised their arguments and/or models, they then proceed to discuss, debate, and argue in the scientific literature. An avid reader, are you?
What's your point?
Even after 2 years, Norfolk Police are still unable to confirm that there was actually a "break-in" of EAU’s systems.
A place where climate activists fly to in enormous jets so they can get together and discuss the ways they can best force everybody else to reduce their "carbon footprint".
I would call that hypocritical. Classic "do as I say, not as I do" BS. If they wanted to reduce their "footprint", then they would not be on the internet, not using computers or any other electronic devices, living in a cave, going barefooted even when it's winter, and not using anything that is manufactured with petrol chemicals or polymers.
Prince Charles should have been rowing his ass around the world to speak about climate change instead of burning millions of gallons of jet fuel to do it.
The key word there is reduce. Your response is the equivalent of saying "I'm going to reduce my caloric intake," and then never eating again.
... do you actually mean something like "fly to in economy class on a 747 mostly filled with tourists and expats returning home for a holiday"?
How else do you attend an international conference if not by plane?
Don't suggest that it could be done over the internet, it just can't, teleconference is no replacement for a proper conference.
The charge is not that climate does not change, nor that human activities likely contribute, but that whatever the facts on those items may be isirrelevant to whether one wishes to see the world enslaved and impoverished to address egalitarian bull.
and we aint gonna be diktateyd to by ani dam spellun chukers nether.
fukin Egaliatarian Egaliatarian-ists
...go after the typos.
but only when the ideas are beneath contempt
Which review was that? I was aware of the university review, which was clearly a white-wash, to the chagrin of the parlimentary review, which had been looking to the university to do the leg work.
If there was an effective independent review, I didn't hear about it, and I'd like to hear about it.
you mean one that supports your viewpoint?
They're all listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
Do you mean the independent review carried out by the House of Commons? Or the one carried out by an investigative journalist for the Guardian? Or the one carried out by the Berkley Earth Science Team - funded by the Koch brothers who spend millions promoting climate science denial. If there was any doubt about this that would have found it - because it was set up and paid to find it.
The review was backed by some notable antis, including the Koch brothers.
I can make up my own mind about motivations - I'd just like a summary of the contents. The article doesn't provide that information.
A reasonable question.. one upside, it's not an Orlowski article, so it's not entirely foaming spin, and you're allowed to ask the question :D
Having only skimmed this story in its many outlets it seems that the theme of the emails released is different from those released in the first tranche.
From the perspective of marketing a message this is good thinking. Release a all the emails around the theme of twisting the science before a major AGW banjoree and reap the discussion of the subject. Release a second tranche when the first has died down before another even that will garner media interest. this time on another theme that "demonstrates climate scientist mendacity". This way a different but complimentary message is discussed. If both had been released together the distinct themes would have been lost amd the message weaker and easier for those being exposed to refute.
Now I hope there are more themes to come personally because this politically powerful branch of science needs a reformation. These may not be the 95 theses but the green movement is sure trying to look like the old religion. Even going so far as selling indulgences for your sins in the form of carbon offsets.
PlacidCasual: if whoever is releasing these mails is using marketing techniques and emotional manipulation to push their 'message', that strikes me as a good sign that their message should be considered to be just as trustworthy as anyone else's marketing claims.
Speaking of messages, the attempt to claim that the 'green movement' is a religion is an oft-repeated message, but repetition does not make it true.
Is the confusion between the University of East Anglia (UEA) and a large oil producing nation (UAE) deliberate, or am I missing something?