There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and …
No surprise really
Just as I thought. Dishonesty and manipulation. I hope those scientists concerned lose all credibility and no one will trust them on any research project in the future.
Climate change is perhaps the biggest scam of the last decade. I hope it stops as it's becoming even less believable as each month passes and the public are wising up to this.
People should just be conscious of pollution, try to minimise it at every opportunity, minimise travel, recycle, etc, etc, but not be bullied or taxed based on a load of B.S. What we do know is pollution can have immediate and obvious effects on the environment (e.g. river pollution, smog, breathing issues) and there are also long term effects which we need to avoid but those shouldn't include climate change based on discredited and weak "evidience".
I have for many years subscribed to the growing belief that the minor change in temperature in the last 100 years is nothing more than a fluctuation which is not out of kilter when looking back at far more significant changes through the last 500 years and further back.
The idea that the Earth's temperature should remain constant is ridiculous. +/- 1 to 2 degrees in 100 years is nothing, it's perfectly natural and has happened many times before the industrial revolution.
it's nice you have a growing belief
... now all you need to do is find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model. Y'know, like a scientist might. After you've done that, then I might find your "growing belief" convincing.
"Climate change is perhaps the biggest scam of the last decade."
Except for Windows Longhorn. And the Prius.
"I have for many years subscribed to the growing belief that the minor change in temperature in the last 100 years is nothing more than a fluctuation which is not out of kilter when looking back at far more significant changes through the last 500 years and further back."
That's completely wrong. There's no evidence of larger more significant changes in the past 500 years. I don't think you understand the subject at all. I don't think you realize how unprecedented 2 degrees in 100 years would be.
You say it's perfectly natural. Based on what? Are you one of the many people who have been misled by graphs of *greenland* temperature changes (an area of sizeable temperature swings and at many times opposite to changes in Antarctic) and think they actually depict global temperature changes? Global temperature changes are far more muted that individual regions. The difference between the little ice age and medieval warm period is calculated to be less than 1 degree C for example. And you talk about 2C warming in 100 years as if it represents something insignificant...
"find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model"
You mean the way CRU didn't?
So how do these emails bring back all the missing glaciers and chunks of the Ross Ice Shelf?
In the terminology of Russell ...
AGW is the celestial teapot; The onus is not upon Gary F to prove that everything is normal.
"...The difference between the little ice age and medieval warm period is calculated to be less than 1 degree C for example. ..."
Calculated by whom, and was it calculated or the globe as a whole, or a specific region? There is enormous disagreement on the magnitudes of the MWP and of the LIA regionally and globally. Michael Mann is on record as insisting that the MWP had to be disposed of, since some of the existing estimates make it warmer than the present. Based upon existing, truly long term data - geological and paleoclimatological - there is no indication that the warming since the end of the LIA is unusual in either magnitude or rate over the span of the Holocene. The causes are also disputable since the early Holocene appears to have been apparently warmer than the present and with sea levels between 1 and 2 meters high than present mean sea level - conditions, mark you, that are considered dire by the IPCC. There is no means to realistically and scientifically show that anything happening now is anomalous. It might be, but coincidence is not unequivocal evidence of causality.
"now all you need to do is find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model."
So basically, the same challenge that faced Phil Jones.
"And you talk about 2C warming in 100 years as if it represents something insignificant..."
And you haven't been here for the last several hundred million years so you don't know that it isn't a reasonable natural occurrence.
The point is, for all this climate change carbon reduction malarkey to make a difference, it has to have been us that caused it. If it wasn't then we're fucked anyway so no point taxing yourself back into the stone age. If you want me to live the rest of my life under oppressive taxation and high energy costs you'd better prove that: 1) It's us causing it, and 2) Your solution makes a difference other than removing taxpayer wealth. Otherwise "no deal".
Man made pollution of the water and land environment (think industrial waste and mining) is a different matter. That's provable and shitty.
Wait a sec
I think you're confusing your GW with your AGW.
Explain something to me.
How is it possible to argue these three things at once:
1) Global mean temperature is not rising.
2) Global mean temperature IS rising, but it's not our fault.
3) Global mean temperature IS rising and it IS our fault but it's too late to fix it and/or it would cost too much.
Because I see it done all the time. Without any apparent irony.
2C in 100 years? Bollocks. More like 1C: http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Regardless, how much global average temperatures have risen is not the point. The key question is whether man-made CO2 emissions have had anything to do with it. Please identify the CO2 signal:
For what it's worth (nothing I suspect, since you are clearly ignorant of both science and philosophy), the argument you have made is the exact opposite of the celestial teapot. The argument is that the burden of proof lies with those making claims unsupported by evidence.
Essentially, most of the worlds scientists are saying : look, here are some photos of the teapot. We are certain about its mass, colour, location, but we're not sure about it orbital trajectory. We've built a model which appears to predict its future location but only with about 70% accuracy, say. There's a chance, they say that it's orbit will bring it into collision with the earth, so on such-and-such day, it might (only might, mind you) be safest to stay indoors.
And you, sir, from absolutely nowhere and a position of abject ignorance make the assertion (and it is just an assertion ) that the photos are fake, the measurements of mass are a lie and it's position is part of global conspiracy / fraud (to what possible end, I have yet to hear a coherent argument, but that kind of goes with the territory).
If you're going to use the arguments of one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, at least, please, try not to get it 100% wrong.
"Calculated by whom, and was it calculated or the globe as a whole, or a specific region?"
By anyone who has tried to calculate it.
Global and Northern Hemisphere.
"There is enormous disagreement on the magnitudes of the MWP and of the LIA regionally and globally."
There really isn't that much disagreement. Look at the reconstructions above. None of them show a MWP more than 1C warmer than the LIA. The key thing is that projections of 3C global warming definitely take us way beyond the MWP. So claims that it used to be so warm in the past that future potential warming will be fine are bogus.
"Michael Mann is on record as insisting that the MWP had to be disposed of, since some of the existing estimates make it warmer than the present. "
No he isn't.
"The causes are also disputable since the early Holocene appears to have been apparently warmer than the present"
The reason why is known. The Earth's orbit and tilt.
"with sea levels between 1 and 2 meters high than present mean sea level - conditions, mark you, that are considered dire by the IPCC"
There were no cities back then near sea level...
Spoken like a true ignoramus
"There were no cities back then near sea level..."
Study your damn history, son. There've been cities near, at, or below sea level for as long as there've been cities, and there've been cities for about as long as there've been humans.
When something sounds religious...
you can tell it's gone off the rails - at this moment EVEN IF the evidence was ultimately correct I think I'd STILL have a knee-jerk reaction to ignore all the preachy, hand waving bullshit the 'holier than thou' group have at their disposal.
It's Catholic guilt, but instead of GOD being mad at us and us being bad and sinful, it's GAIA that is sad with us being bad energy consuming wastrels. If only we listen to the eco-friendly and their preaching of a low-energy future where we can all EQUALLY share in the poverty and disease, all the while peddaling the bicycle with the dynamo attached to power the one surviving piece of medical equipment per village.
Get this, the new Green Tax is to pay for Nuclear plants!
While I'm not fully convinced that the current warming trend is mostly our fault, there are still other issues with carbon energy (particulate and other pollution, non-renewability, security of supply), so it anyway makes sense to tax carbon.... as long as we invest the resulting take in the ONLY proven energy-generating source we have that is (a) reliable and well-understood (b) mature (c) scalable to hundreds of GW without needing to occupy half a countries' land area (d) provably safer than any other power generation method.
I'd be more embarrassed for people whose judgement is so skewed that they would favour selectively cherry picked / quote mined private emails as evidence of a conspiracy vs overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates climate change is real and manmade.
There is absolutely nothing about the leaked emails, either batch 1 or batch 2 which supports the notion that there is a conspiracy. Nothing.
> There is absolutely nothing about the leaked emails
> which supports the notion that there is a conspiracy.
Yeah, nothing except page after page of evidence of peer review corruption, illegal deletion of contradictory evidence, pledges of allegiance to "The cause", expressions of public certainly about MMGW while concealing private doubts, high level discussions with BBC journalists and NGOs on how best to scaremonger, how to smear sceptics, keep them out of the scientific literature etc. All by supposedly unbiased 'top climate experts' and IPCC lead authors.
Yeah - absolutely nothing to see here.... Move along.
Well then that's because you've totally misunderstood what is being claimed.
The claim is that there is a systematic issue related to politics and human nature going on here driven by ego, greed and ignorance. It's not likely anything as planned as a conspiracy is going on here. Just plain old human nature.
Is that various climatologists caved to the sophomoric demands of politicians and policy formulators to express certainty when in fact they lacked it. To protect funding streams they caved.
Now you're spouting nonsense. The leaked emails show nothing except the technical / shop talk, intellectual sparring and occasional bitchiness as might be expected amongst scientists chatting privately amongst themselves. Out of that, some people such as yourself have imagined some vast conspiracy, liberally quotemining and cherry picking from the emails to construct this facade, one which doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny. A reasonable reading of the email in context shows nothing extraordinary which would explain why 4 or 5 enquiries have completely exonerated the scientists of any wrongdoing.
As usual this is just the sort of typical smoke and mirror tactics that denialists of all shades (creationists, 911 truthers, antivaxxers etc.) employ. They have no evidence of their own to support their own preconceptions so they go into attack mode. They nitpick on minor inconsistences, pseudoscience, cherry pick, quotemine, attach ulterior motives to the authors of such works, throw ad hominems around. All hoping in the confusion that their evidence lite other theory wins by default. It doesn't.
DrXym - your reply reminds me of Alec Baldwin in this famous scene from Team America:
Just a couple of emails to prove my point:
<5111> Pollack: "it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland"
<4944> Haimberger: "It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots [opposite to MMGW model predictions]... it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts."
<1680> Mann: "I have been talking with folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy."
<2496> Hulme : "This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [run by BBC's Roger Harrabin] to starve this type of reporting at source."
No they don't prove your point. They lack context so you are having to assume and read things into them that aren't there to make your point. They are also
If there was true corruption why are there only a dozen or so emails out of thousands that are having single sentences taken out of them without context?
Take this one for example that you think *proves* your case:
"it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland".
Anyone who knows a thing about this subject that the MWP signal in Greenland is huge. So he cannot possibly be being serious. He's probably being sarcastic and making the point that the MWP signal exists at least in Greenland. So no this isn't proof as you claim, there is reasonable doubt. Now if you had included the full email in all it's context rather than snipping all the context out maybe you could make a case. As it stands you can't. All you prove is that climategate is about skeptics taking sentences out of context and at face value.
Or this one:
"This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [run by BBC's Roger Harrabin] to starve this type of reporting at source.""
What type of reporting is he talking about? Bad reporting. So.... think about it. Why would a scientific organization be interested in getting journalists to report science well? You say "media bribes". Again another example of your so-called proof being absolutely rubbish.
Notice that the quote starts with "This is the reason why". So what is the reason? Why remove the preceding part of the email that gives the reason? That's an inexcusable deletion of relevant context.
What do you have to hide by removing that text?
Nom - if you want the full context just checkout the rest of the emails using the number I provided at www.Foia2011.org In each case the apparent skullduggery in the quote is confirmed by the rest of the email.
Why are Pollack and his colleagues trying to "make the medieval warm period go away"? It's because it totally destroys the case for alarm over the mild warming last century.
As regards Tyndall sponsoring the BBC journalist propaganda group CMEP - BBC environmental reporters Harrabin and Black have & continue to be at the forefront of attempts to silence and downplay the corruption exposed by the climategate emails. They have also been complicit in silencing any criticism of MMGW "science" and economically suicidal climate change policies. And now we have evidence in these emails of inappropriate cozy relationships between BBC editors and activist scientists.
They aren't "trying to make the medieval warm period go away". It's YOU who needs to read that email. Evidentially you haven't.
I'll tell you "what if".
“'What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?' muses one scientist. 'They’ll kill us probably.'”
And you'd deserve it, too. Literally.
So how do you explain that the IPCC report only says that it is very likely that humans have caused most of the warming in recent decades? It doesn't claim 100% certainty. Neither do the scientists. Very likely in the IPCC iirc (and I probably don't) is defined as 90% certainty.
So it's fine to speculate that maybe the consensus is wrong and the warming is due to some unknown cause.
What scientists get annoyed at is when contrarians (sometimes fossil fuel funded) try to trick the public into thinking that such speculation carries more weight - as if the liklihood of human involvement is tiny - as if there is no threat or issue with climate change.
The whole climategate thing is full of skeptics deploying strawmen of like this to pretend scientists are saying things in private that contradict what they say in the public.
if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal...
If it appears to be mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation, but it empirically floods you into Atlantean Lore (for a few decades), you neither need to nor can (with or without title to your senseless rage) kill the IPCC and faction. In their polar forest soils improvement grotto and favela mines. By rooting their e-mail server.
This isn't good for FOIA, though.
See he told you so.
Well this will please my dad, he always said it was a load of rubbish.
The Pretense of Knowledge will set you free!!!
I love the second to last paragraph. It seems macroeconomics isn't the only "science" relying on Voodoo usage of complex technical models that don't suit the task. Hayek's essay "The pretense of knowledge" comes to mind and applies equally to this mess as well: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html
Politicians like to skew data? Sacre bleu cheese
So, without any information from politicians as to why they might want to over-scare with twisted scientific data, how should the common person react given historical knowledge of similar episodes in politics like the eugenics nightmare?
Trying to caste doubt on climate change is really a political tool, not a scientific debate. It's obvious that the industrial revolution and 7 Bil. plus people have a dramatic effect on the environment. Trying to make some scientists look like they're skewing the figures is a political ploy for the industry to keep using fossil fuels and nuclear power. Pollution is obvious and human caused, too. Sure, we have cyclical planetary changes, but you can't rule out the impact of how humans are wrecking things on the Earth.
"and nuclear power"
Nuclear is, for the amount of energy it produces, one of the safest and greenest options we have.
"It's obvious that the industrial revolution and 7 Bil. plus people have a dramatic effect on the environment"
"Sure, we have cyclical planetary changes, but you can't rule out the impact of how humans are wrecking things on the Earth."
How the hell did this drivel get upvoted? If someone had the gall to state the obverse on this forum, the frothy-mouthed demands for 'evidence' would bring down teh internets.
I am sure nature will do well in Fucashima when all the people move away.
Read todays newspapers, green tax is to lower the carbon footprint by funding new nuclear power stations and wind farms. Why would the nuclear industry be cliamte skeptics the way you suggest?
Obvious to maybe in one paragrpah
It's so "obvious" you can't even show us it isn't natural variability, and since there has been no warming since 1998 - thirteen years now and counting - that is not surprising.
You start out trying to convince everyone else but by the end of you can't even convince yourself.
Keep it up!
Ha ha ha!
Andrew Orlowski in "science is unsure business" discovery shocker.
In other news, Neutrinos apparently manage to exceed the speed of light.
All models are wrong
You seem to have accidentally misquoted Phil Jones. "All models are wrong" is an acknowledged fact about empirical science, and perhaps an allusion to George Box: "all models are wrong, but some are useful". "All our models are wrong" carries a rather different message.
Move along please, no intellectual corruption to be seen here...
Re: All models are wrong
Nice try. But Jones explains WHY the models are wrong.
@AO - of course he can explain why the models are wrong.
since all models are wrong, and he knows the models, he knows where the improvements need to be made, where the most serious approximations are; and has a presumably good grasp of how useful they are likely to be. So what was your point, exactly?
So why didn't you provide that context? I don't see any context for any of the quotes.
Re: @AO - of course he can explain why the models are wrong.
Using computers models as evidence is a general problem. Failing to model clouds (as Jones says) is a more specific problem. Tuning the models for 20th climate is another, and very naughty.
There's three to crack on with.
I believe they're from 2009 (or at least some of them are), as was the first batch. But they haven't been released before.
Saying 're-released' is a pretty feeble attempt to discredit them as 'nothing new to see here' which is certainly not the case. At the risk of hyperbole, it's like claiming the Rosetta Stone "just an old stone re-released" when it was dug up in 1799.
Says it all really:
Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science.