Skip to main content

ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists

Noel Sheppard's picture

Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain's University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.

James Delingpole reported in Britain's Telegraph Tuesday:

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

The BBC is reporting that these email messages also come from UEA, and number around 5,000. The entire set is available at MegaUpload.

As you might imagine, climate realists across the globe are beginning to sift through these messages. Our friend Tom Nelson has already uncovered some whoppers:

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. [...]

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. [...]

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. [...]

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Of course, the "Mike" and "Michael" being regularly disparaged by his peers is Michael Mann, the creator of the thoroughly-debunked Hockey Stick graph which so much of this myth is dependent on.

As physicist Lubos Motl notes, these messages "surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues."

Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:

<2440> Jones:

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

<2094> Briffa:

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.

... <1577> Jones:

[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.


Briffa of course is Keith Briffa, the man exposed to have manipulated tree ring data in order to assist Mann's Hockey Stick charade.

As previously stated, realists from around the world are just starting to go through all these thousands of messages, and it will likely be days if not weeks before we know everything they contain.

Regardless, people that have been pushing back on this myth for years are beginning to weigh in.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee issued the following statement Tuesday:

"Even before the Climategate emails were released in 2009, the so-called ‘consensus' peddled by the IPCC was already shattered," Senator Inhofe said. "Nevertheless, the Obama administration is moving full speed ahead to implement global warming regulations that will impose the largest tax increase in American history, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

"Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC. Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding: it shows that EPA did not engage in the required record-keeping procedures or conduct an independent review of the science underpinning these costly regulations. If the first Climategate scandal - and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake - were not enough, the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA's job killing global warming agenda.

"The crisis of confidence in the IPCC translates into a crisis of confidence in the EPA's endangerment finding. The IPCC science has already disintegrated under the weight of its own flaws, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the endangerment finding follows suit. It's time for the Obama administration to stop trying to resurrect policies that are all pain for no gain, and get to work on reviving our economy."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell issued the following statement Tuesday:

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

And Climate Depot's Marc Morano wrote Tuesday:

"It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement.

"The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science."

As this is just the beginning of this latest round of email messages from UEA, readers are advised to stay tuned to NewsBusters for regular updates as well as to see how the global warming-loving media are responding.

*****Update: Tom Nelson has found some remarkable observations concerning these email messages from warmist David Appell:

On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating...The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists).

Comments

#1 Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Part 2)

The MSM, prodded by the AGW jedi knights, will likely have little or nothing to say about this latest release, other than to reassure us that it changes nothing.

Afterall, as Prince Albert Gore has insisted for years, "the debate is over," so they will dismiss these EMails as 'taken out of context' or 'misunderstood,' and march on with their Doom Speak.

Don't be surprised if they call for an prosecution of the individual(s) responsible for obtaining the EMails, even as they wonder why PFC Bradley "Wilileaks" Manning is still in custody.

#2 Can it be any clearer?

"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."

Every Republican presidential candidate & member of Congress should put a copy of this in their shirt pocket & quote it every time they are in front of a microphone. Just as Herman Cain reminds everyone of 9-9-9 at every microphone, GOP office holders & seekers need to make this their mantra.

Anyone who takes money from the taxpayer is NOT entitled to keep their data hidden.

This just makes my head explode.

Kick them ALL out!

"Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind."  Ayn Rand

#3 Hi Ho Hi Ho

It's off to jail they go.

Once you have fried your first excuses it makes the second ones all the more suspect.

#4 Climate garbage.

Garbage in - garbage out - nothing but garbage.

Imagine - it's possible that these e-mails can save mankind much suffering, and $trillions of wasted dollars.

Of course, our national MSM just ain't going to deliver here.

Noel - thanks for delivering the gift of optimism.

(;~> gary

PS - would love to see Sen. Inhofe drag Al Gore in front of committee and ask one simple question:

  • Al Gore, are you just plain stupid, or did you knowingly engage in fraud with the American people on the issue of AGW - climate change, etc?

#5 One man's snitch is another man's whistleblower

This is one of the most important reasons why the DoE needs a top-to-bottom audit. If you accept research grants which IN ANY WAY originated with the taxpayer you have just kissed off any legitimate claim of confidentiality. Period. And why do these "researchers" not want their data to become public? D'ya suppose maybe because the data they have DO NOT support their conclusions?

#6 rickster0130, if I may, this

rickster0130, if I may, this is another reason why the DoE needs to be completely, totally, absolutely, without any vestige left, ABOLISHED! Since its inception in the 70's, one of Carter's lame attempts, it has consumed trillions of taxpayer's money with NO, repeat, NO contributions to the overall good. Not to say it hasn't contributed however, it has made energy less abundant, more costly, and less likely to be present in the future. WE DON'T a Department of Energy!

#7 Other opinions

The article quotes the Telegraph.
Here is the Mail Online:
The emails have been released in the form of quotes carefully 'chosen' to show bias
http://tinyurl.com/d9yreo8

Here is the Post:
The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks
http://tinyurl.com/7ajuztf

#8 Give it up, chipmunk;---

unless, of course, it is part of your plan to continue playing the role of the fool in the AGW farce.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#9 Noooo!!! They're "choosing" and "cherry picking"?

So it IS true!

In other breaking news, the Brits have a boundless fascination with big boobs and bikinis.

#10 Too bad ol' Clevie-Poo has

Too bad ol' Clevie-Poo has been sent packing, because he was a BIG 'climate change' believer, so he'd be here defending his comm-rads, regarless if they were telling the 'TRUTH' or not!!!

And, hey SoL.............you've got a problem with big boobs and bikinis??? I didn't think so!!!!

#11 How do I ask this without getting yelled at...

Here's what I thought happened with ClimateGate:

The Koch brothers, along with others, funded a new research group, led by one of the people who helped take down the hockey stick, to challenge the consensus on global warming. That group, despite their funding, their initial bias, and their stated goal, found that warming is real to a degree almost precisely the same as what East Anglia and the IPCC measured, and that it couldn't be accounted for by selection bias, station quality, or the urban heat island effect. They also put all of their data and analyses on the web, here, for anyone to examine and challenge.

 The way you guys keep referring to ClimateGate is as if this hasn't happened. So I presume that you believe this new research has been debunked or otherwise shown to be part of the same vast conspiracy that produced all of the other research. If so, could someone please point me to the folks who debunked it or gave you good reasons to ignore it?

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#12 No yelling, grizzly.

Your first mistake was this,"I thought"

Yeah, it was the Koch brothers, in league with W, directed by Cheney, and facilitated by Rush Limbaugh, who planted the idea over across the pond to lie in their presentations and then to admit to it in e-mails that they had the arrogance to think could not be hacked.  Sums it up nicely, what?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#13 No yelling mamabear*

But, like Jer says, credibility can be undermined by the source.

Here is another source with an amazing archives

#14 Lets play count the

Lets play count the myths.

The Koch brothers, along with others, funded a new research group, led by one of the people who helped take down the hockey stick...

The BEST study that you refer was lead by Richard Muller of Berkeley. Not only did he not "take down the hockey stick" but he is a well known warmer despite what the MSM tell you. Muller has previously referred to skeptics as deniers. The evil Koch brothers provided less than 25% of the total funding. BEST was also funded by warmer Bill "judge me by what I say not what I do" Gates.

That group, despite their funding, their initial bias, and their stated goal...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Could you please provide a link that shows their bias and stated goal? Thanx in advance.

...found that warming is real to a degree almost precisely the same as what East Anglia and the IPCC measured...

Actually, this is what BEST found. Basically nothing. Although BEST did confirm the highest rate of warming in the last two centuries was between 1810 and 1850.

...and that it couldn't be accounted for by selection bias, station quality, or the urban heat island effect.

What total nonsense. Where do you get this crap from? They just used a different statistical technique with existing land surface temperature readings.

They also put all of their data and analyses on the web, here, for anyone to examine and challenge.

Their data is 100% useless. Their README.data file is clearly marked

"This release is not recommended for third party research use as the known bugs may lead to erroneous conclusions due to incomplete understanding of the data set’s current limitations."

It's no wonder this is non peer reviewed material because they recommend nobody use their data. How could you peer review it?

So I presume that you believe this new research has been debunked

Not that non peer reviewed material with "known bugs" needs to be debunked but see here and here and here and here and here just for starters.

 

#15 "Big Popcorn!" And "Big

"Big Popcorn!" And "Big Beer!" That's who I think is behind Climategate II. How many of us pulled up a bowl of popcorn and/or beer, when foia.org gave us an early Christma present early this morning. He rode in quickly in the wee hours of the night. Just like Santa.

 

"You lie!"  Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)

#16 Big Popcorn

I think deep in my heart I always knew Orville Redenbacher was a denier. Probably his real name is Orville Koch. ;-)

#17 Okay, one by one

Muller did help take down the hockey stick. This is the quote that had deniers in such a happy tizzy when he did it:

"When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?"

This doesn't make him a non-believer, it makes him a skeptic. Isn't that what we want, someone willing to follow the numbers even if they cause trouble for people they agree with?

The Koch foundation was the single largest donor to the project. The stated goal is right there on the website-- they thought skeptics had raised valid complaints, and they wanted to investigate them. The project was created to challenge the way this science is usually done, by being open with data and methodology and seeing what they got.

How is confirming that previously recorded temperature rises are essentially accurate nothing?! No, they haven't looked at causes yet, but plenty of people, including people on this website, have denied that warming is happening at all, regardless of cause.

Using a different analysis is exactly how you prove that those denier claims aren't true. One argument against warming was that by selecting for stations with long records, people were also likely to be picking the stations most likely to show warming. So, they took random samples from the total data set instead of only using the longest records. They also sampled all stations instead of using the rankings. Guess what? Same results as using only the best stations or the longest records. Those are two major complaints against East Anglia and the IPCC, shown to be invalid. That's not nothing.

They've submitted 4 papers for peer review, as of October. It will take a couple of months, usually, for the peer review process to be completed, but if they didn't think the findings were worthwhile, why did they submit them? As for the disclaimer, really? It in no way implies that other people can't look at their data to evaluate their conclusions. Heck, you are linking to 5 people who did exactly that!

So, your debunking. Here's the important 2 sentences from the first link "The only places I have concern are in the brush-over given to the UHI effect and the obviously over-tight confidence intervals. Even if the CI’s were widened to more correct levels, it wouldn’t change the result and the UHI effect isn’t going to reverse any trend so despite some statistical critique, I believe the result is very close to the actual global surface temperature average minus some unknown amount of warming by UHI. " So, your "debunker" says he has some small problems but thinks the result is essentially correct.

The second link appears to be about how the algorithm deals with a station moving. But because they didn't select stations, I don't see how that's an issue for the larger data set unless you contend that moved stations should be more likely to get warmer after moving than colder.

Your third link is the same as the first one in your post, and basically says the same thing as the second one, while harping excessively on the fact that BEST hasn't said anything about the anthropogenicity of the temperature change. We already know that.

Your 4th link complains that 649 stations used in the data set lack longitude or latitude, and that only idiots should have trouble locating Camp David. The data set that those missing values came from consists of 39,390 stations. So 1.6% of them are missing some data.

The last link might pose some real problems, but only if the author's supposition that negative discrepencies will be more likely to be split than positive is true. It's just a supposition, there's no evidence provided that it's true. Still that may be a problem.

But none of these are a death blow to the conclusions of the study. They are exactly the kind of discussion scientists should be having about their data and methods. It's a good thing, and so far there is nothing that indicates that the warming is a lie created by a vast liberal science conspiracy.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#18 Overall it's a non-issue in the debate

It was M and M that took down the hockey stick, not Muller. Muller just agrees with them as any rational thinking person would. The hockey stick battle has absolutely nothing to do with land based surface temps. The hockey stick is paleo. The climategate emails are mainly about IPCC ar4 and the hockey stick and has very little to do with surface temps which is what is so stupid about your connecting the two .

 

The stated goals of BEST are

 

1. To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research 2. To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations 3. To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms 4. To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis 5. To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data

Sorry, no nefarious plot by Koch.

If you read through the comments at the links (there's tons more) you'll notice that that it wasn't for a week or so that the disclaimer was noticed about the data. This put a halt to most of the discussions as it became apparent the whole procedure was academic.

At this point they still have not come close to their stated goals. They have not released any raw data and put a disclaimer on their "merged" data.

Manabear, don't get me wrong but this whole conversation is futile. There are few people who don't think the world is warming. Most people seem to think that some day the BEST study will be of some value with an additional set of land based measurements. But BEST was not designed to make any statement on detection or attribution of climate change. It is just one more tool in the amount of surface warming. There is also no possible way they could claim to account for UHI given the uncertainty in the existing network. Even Jones himself now admits the UHI in China is 1degree per century. All the land based temps (NOAA, CRU, GISS and BEST) show a significant divergence form the sea surface temps (70% of the planet) and satellite temps (RSS, UAH).

Sorry Mamabear, my comment got mangled around in the text editor and I lost some stuff but don't have time to do over.

#19 oh my goodness

I'm not connecting the hockey stick to surface temperature. I'm simply pointing out that Muller is someone who agreed with the critics of the hockey stick, which is relevant in so far as it shows he is not one of these sinister conspiracy scientists you guys think are meeting in dark rooms somewhere to plan how to pull the wool over the world's eyes. It is not relevant because the data in that study had anything to do with the data in this study, it obviously does not. Sorry if that was confusing.

Those are the stated objectives of the study. If you read the FAQ, it explains that the project came about because Muller felt there were real concerns raised by skeptics that needed to be raised. I never said that this was a nefarious plot! But if Koch chose to donate to a scientific group working to study the claims of global warming skeptics, it seems reasonable to assume he was hoping for a different result. Endlessly I hear on this website that scientists can't be trusted to find a result different than what their funders hoped for because all scientists are snivelling, greedy cowards who are desperate to make millions of dollars-- work for the government, and evidence of global warming will keep you in champagne and caviar. Corruption happens, but it isn't common. Mistakes are pretty common, and that's what this open process is designed to fix. They've already updated resources on the website in response to criticisms from the scientific community.

Honestly, you make it sound like I am proposing a conspiracy theory, when actually I am trying to point out that there doesn't seem to be one! There are people on this website who don't think the world is warming in any way aside from decadal variations. It may be an academic point to you, and if so I'm glad, but it isn't to everyone.

The reality of global warming and its cause are two separate issues, but they are both important. If warming is real and likely to continue, then we have to deal with its effects. That doesn't have anything to do with whether we are causing it. The issue of what causes it affects whether or not it can be stopped. That's why people feel like it is an urgent issue. But honestly, we are rapidly approaching the point where the cause will become moot. We will still have to figure out how to respond.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#20 This is what kills me.

This is what kills me. Warming, cooling, whatever - it happened before man, before industry, so trying to attach it to our actions seems like a control issue, not reality.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#21 Not logical

You cannot assume that because something happened before humans existed it therefore cannot now be caused by humans. Fire happened before humans existed, but we can make fire. We could set the whole world on fire if we wanted to and create a disaster such as has never been seen before, despite the fact that fire can also be a natural process.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#22 mamabear

Wow, not logical because you assume about me?

I never said what humans do doesn't have *any* effect, just pointing out that it seems like more about control rather than reality.

I've said before that my dad worked for JPL studying the ozone layer and a few years back I told him *my* theory: that our "contribution" to warming/cooling/change is but a gnat on a giant's tush - ie, what nature does has a MUCH greater impact. He listened and told me I had the gist of it.

Since he's a scientist, I'll take his word for it.

Besides - that's all we are doing here, right? Having a discussion based on *our* opinions of what this all means.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#23 Well, I'm sorry to assume

but I don't think we've ever interacted before, so all I have to go on are the words you type on your keyboard. I'm glad to hear that your opinion that anthropogenic climate change is not reality is based on more than just the reason you gave in that post.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#24 mamabear

Yes, I should have been clearer. I have noticed a lot of patterns repeating lately, and the biggest one is when there is a line drawn in the sand and you are either all in or considered stupid, when the basis for being all in is based on a fault.

I can see more than just black or white, so I get that those who espouse the extreme ends are in the minority, but because they control the bullhorns, they get the ink.

Locally, I've experienced man's impact. Here in Las Vegas in the early 90's, every summer was hot and dry. Over time, with the addition of houses, AC's, swimming pools and other types of water being introduced, our summers are now quite humid. I don't extrapolate that out to mean it impacts other areas though.

And who knows - maybe I confuse causation and correlation here - I'm not knowledgeable enough to discern.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#25 I guess I got confused

I guess I got confused because you started by saying

"The Koch brothers, along with others, funded a new research group, led by one of the people who helped take down the hockey stick, to challenge the consensus on global warming. That group, despite their funding, their initial bias, and their stated goal, found that warming is real to a degree almost precisely the same as what East Anglia.."

I guess we could argue the semantics of what "nefarious plot" means but I see no other way to interpret that other than you saying because BEST was funded by the Koch Bros. they have a bias and a stated goal to prove there is no warming. So now you are saying

"I'm simply pointing out that Muller is someone who agreed with the critics of the hockey stick, which is relevant in so far as it shows he is not one of these sinister conspiracy scientists you guys think are meeting in dark rooms somewhere to plan how to pull the wool over the world's eyes...Those are the stated objectives of the study."

I can certainly agree with your second statement so I guess here we have common ground. Since Muller clearly states in this popular YouTube video a year ago that he is a firm believer in AGW and since his lead scientist is a poster child for AGW that even shows and promotes hockey stick studies on his website and since the largest donation of money came from the Department of Energy I'll assume you now retract your original statement.

There are people on this website who don't think the world is warming in any way aside from decadal variations. It may be an academic point to you, and if so I'm glad, but it isn't to everyone.

Again, this is different from your earlier statement

No, they haven't looked at causes yet, but plenty of people, including people on this website, have denied that warming is happening at all, regardless of cause.

We could be losing some of that common ground here :-)

The reality of global warming and its cause are two separate issues, but they are both important. If warming is real and likely to continue, then we have to deal with its effects. That doesn't have anything to do with whether we are causing it. The issue of what causes it affects whether or not it can be stopped. That's why people feel like it is an urgent issue. But honestly, we are rapidly approaching the point where the cause will become moot. We will still have to figure out how to respond.

A couple of points.

The "likely to continue" is the $64,000 question. If there's one thing certain with this latest batch of emails is that all of these esteemed scientists have tremendous doubts about their own work. They say so continuously in point blank terms calling each others work crap and garbage and yet in public they put on a united front and write papers with each other. If I or the Koch Bros. do that were called "deniers" and "funded by fossil fuel interests" but when they do it it's referred to as "scientists working together." Of course, even in AR4 they state their level of scientific understanding (losu) as low but then say AGW is "unequivocal" and "very likely". How much sense does that make? We have just seen in the last year or two that the who's who of AGW belief are writing papers trying to explain why warming has (pick one) stopped/paused /plateaued/stalled etc. Hansen has his "delayed reaction to Mount Pinatubo theory". Trenberth has his "heat hiding in the deep ocean somewhere" theory. Santer just came out with his "we now need 17 years" theory.

Point 2 is why is it carved in stone it (warming) should be stopped? The BEST study said we have two degrees of warming in two centuries. One degree in the 19th century and one degree in the 20th century. Has this been a bad thing? Whether its life expectancy or crop yields or any other measurement how can anybody argue this has been bad? If you could snap your fingers and make the planet two degrees colder would you? I've never seen any solid scientific argument about the supposed bad things (accelerated sea level rise, glacier melt, extreme weather etc.).

Point 3 is how do we respond. Let just say that catastrophic AGW is real. All two degrees of warming is because of mankind and the warming is going to accelerate and lead to the worst possible scenario. What do we do about it? When you look at world history can there be little doubt that the innovation of the free market will be the solution. You think government decree will be the answer? I think you'll find this is why so many conservatives get so worked up about AGW. You and others go on and on about  "Big Oil" apparently completely oblivious to how much "Big Oil" has invested in new energy sources. Can there be little doubt that "Big Oil" will be ahead of the curve with new energy and this will work to their advantage. Even if not, there are 7 billion people opposed to "Big Oil" and they have every profit incentive to invest in new technologies.

These, of course, are all rhetorical questions and perhaps worthy for debate another day. I just wanted you to know that you have started with a lot of assumptions of your own when it comes to mitigation and/or adaption.

#26 I don't think I've

I don't think I've substantially revised many of my statements-- you interpreted all of them to mean more than I intended until I specified otherwise. I'm pretty used to that around here! Their funding had significant right wing backers. Their bias was to think that skeptics had raised valid claims. That was the purpose of the research, to test those claims. Despite that, they found that the specific claims they investigated had no merit. Everything I said makes sense without involving nefarious plots-- you just assumed that as the liberal in the room I must be thinking of nefarious plots. When it comes to science, that's a conservative deal, not a liberal one! Our nefarious plots involve the military indsutrial complex. Yours are the ones about soviet scientists giving you frontal lobotomies.

Again, with the decadal variation, I was just clarifying. Everyone, including people who believe in AGW, know that there are decadal temperature variations. When I said "no warming at all" I thought it was obvious that I meant aside from the warming and cooling we all know happens all the time. The second time around, I decided to clarify. I'm not changing my position.

Your links are going to strange places. The funding link goes to the Koch foundation statement. The hockey stick link goes to an art website on which, so far, I have found no hockey sticks. There's a lot of graphs there, though, maybe I'm just missing it.

Scientists should roast themselves over their own fires. It's what we're trained to do-- doubt everything, qualify everything. That's why science loses every public policy debate we get into-- because people see argument as weakness. But what they don't get is that all of these scientists, with a few exceptions, agree on the big points, and disagree vehemently on the details. It's the same thing with evolution, a subject that I'm much more familiar with. Every time someone suggests an alteration to Darwin's basic theory, a creationist is there to claim that evolutionary theory is dead. But everyone involved in that argument about the alteration thinks that life evolves. There's a reason that you and the Koch brothers would be called deniers-- because instead of disagreeing with most scientists about the details, you disagree about the big picture.

Yes, we want to stop warming. We don't know exactly what will happen, but we live in a crowded world. Make any part of it harder to live in, and it will cause problems. There's no reason to think sea levels WON'T rise, even if we can't prove (because of course you could never prove that something is going to happen in the future) that it will. Similar with extreme weather-- storms are driven by heat. Add heat to the system, and you'd need to come up with a good reason NOT to think that the severity of storms would increase. We can't know for sure that these things will happen, but assuming that none of them will is a huge logical leap, probably into a brick wall.

I absolutely agree that the free market will be the key to finding innovative ways to deal with global warming. So, funnily enough, does our government. This is your conspiracy theory inclination again-- the government needs to get involved to try and stop global warming-- it's the tragedy of the commons. Without rules, no one is driven by the free market to sacrifice their profit first in order to stop our communal decline. But if we fail at that, then government won't be the one to deal with the aftermath. There's a reason the government talks about green economies and alternate energy jobs. It's not because the government intends to be the employer, they are trying to kickstart a private industry that we hope will provide the answers we need if we have to deal with catastrophic climate change. I think we are on the same page there.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein

#27 As dbo indicated. "“Our

As dbo indicated. "“Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no – but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.” This is a reasonable statement, but comes across very differently from the WSJ editorial." Source Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

Looking at Judy's statement this is a red herring. The issue of human attribution is the issue. Climate has changed since the dawn of history. It's not driven by one variable. But many.

 

"You lie!"  Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)

#28 You know...

I have read on these pages it written that some days it must be so hard to be a liberal.

Well, on days like this, when bombshells like this are dropped, it is so very easy to have been the liberal's opponents for so long and been subject to their abuses for being a 'denier'.

Vindication is so very sweet when it finally comes to pass. I think we are coming close to keeping "Told Ya So" on the paste function......no need to wear out those particular keys. ;)

That an individual right exists requires that some policy positions be removed from the table of debate.

#29 They Investigated the Last Leak and Prooooved AGW is real!

You can't doubt Penn States investigative skills! /

#30 Time to yell

Everyone seems to assume that this latest batch is "ClimateGate II". But the real CLIMATEGATE was revealed back in 1995 by just one e-mail.

It was directed to David Deming at the University of Oklahoma by a well-known C-Gater and it stated that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". This was the real origin of the infamous "hide the decline" fiasco from the 2009 batch.

The authors of the first IPCC report, naively believing that they would all be doing honest science, had included a graph showing what ALL of the prior studies had revealed - that there was a period warmer than now and that we have been experiencing a (naturally occurring) thermal revival from something else the alarmists don't like, the Little Ice Age.

Therefore, they had to cook the data of which the "hockey stick" was just one example.

GLOBAL WARMING - authoritarian, rather than authoritative, science

CLIMATEGATE - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

GENUINE SCIENCE - neutral, not neutralized

#31 See dummies - this is why you

See dummies - this is why you have doubters!

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#32 Speaking for Al Gore,

"I am shocked".

#33 I ask again...............

Have ANY of the proponents ever been asked to explain why warming and cooling has happened previous ? I have a 5 1/4 inch sharks tooth that was carried to the shores of Chesapeake bay some 12 to 15 million years ago ! Splain that Lucy !! We were not here then.

#34 As far as I am concerned

Climatism = Socialism

Climatism = central planning, central control, economic control, quotas, central regulation of all aspects of human life.

I wondered where all those commies went after the USSR collapsed. The became environmentalists and are trying to pull all their old, tired tricks disguised as do-gooders..

"I find that I am deeply offended by political correctness." IdahoAndy

IdahoJim

http://idahoandy.net

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.