Comments on: Climate Justice Clips: Countdown to Copenhagen, Day 7

By: Climate Justice Clips: Countdown to Copenhagen, Day 7 - Jarrod … | maldivestoday

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:27:14 +0000

[...] is the original: Climate Justice Clips: Countdown to Copenhagen, Day 7 – Jarrod … Share and [...]

By: KGC

KGC — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:21:46 +0000

Its relevance to the stolen e-mails concerns the e-mail from Penn State's Michael Mann who suggested that CRU stop considering Climate Review as a legitimate peer reviewed journal, given the fact that they published the 2003 article that was subsequently debunked, and given the fact that the CR's editorial board refused to make changes to prevent shoddy research papers from being published in the future.

The Mann e-mail seems to be the hook that the Climategate folks are hanging their hat on, citing Mann's e-mail as evidence that climate change scientists are deliberately squelching evidence contrary to their research.

The other evidence cited in the e-mails concerns the use of the words "tricks", and "hide the evidence", both of which are unfortunate choices of words, but which don't bear any significance upon scrutiny. So unless there are any legitimate smoking guns out there in the stolen e-mails, I don't see what the fuss is about.

I find it amusing that skeptics can only snip away at the edges of climate change research. Of course there are unanswered questions about global warming and of course there is evidence that doesn't fit the theory in its present state. As we gain more understanding of global climate the theory will evolve. I just don't see any hard evidence that refutes the general theory of anthropogenic climate change.

By: KGC

KGC — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:21:46 +0000

By: SamHamilton

SamHamilton — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:11:36 +0000

This was published in 2004 about shoddy papers published in peer reviewed journals back then. What does it have to do with the stolen emails?

I don't think scientific organizations are out to hoard research dollars. I think there is a bias towards hiding inconvenient data and painting the worst case scenario in order to keep one's life work funded. The stolen emails show scientists manipulating data in attempts to hide declines in global temperatures. Is this how science is done?

By: squeaky

squeaky — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:12:06 +0000

I think Brian McLaren expands those thoughts in one of his books–The Secret Message of Jesus, I think, if I remember right. Surely environmental disaster would bring on the four horsemen as competition for scarce resources increases. This has always been a part of human history, and as the population grows and increased wealth requires increased energy, it's not hard to see those dire predictions as distinct possibilities.

By: eurotony

eurotony — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:16:04 +0000

At this time of year I have the fun of reading “The Revelation to John” each weekday at evening prayer. There are some passages in that (I'm thinking particularly of the seven trumpets in chh. 8-11 and the seven bowls in ch. 16) which read remarkably like a pre-scientific account of ecological disaster. The interesting (and, in the light of some of the comments on this thread, alarming) thing is that none of the disasters lead to the repentance of those who are destroying the earth. And they will, in their turn, be destroyed (Rev 11:18). This analysis probably makes me sound like a raving fundamentalist – which I'm not – but I think that we neglect serious study of the symbolism of Revelation and its significance for the contemporary situation at our peril.

By: KGC

KGC — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:32:52 +0000

Sam:
Check this link out.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja...

It's pretty interesting that the “controversial data” cited is not even original research. Funny how the editor of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned when the weakness of the paper was uncovered. It's also interesting how second-rate research makes it all the way to the U.S. where it is prominently featured. Do you really think that all the prominent scientific organizations that conduct studies on global warming are in some vast conspiracy to hoard research dollars? PLEASE! How about citing some real science?

By: jarvo1

jarvo1 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:43:04 +0000

Just to clarify I was commenting on Sam Hamiliton spew of paranoid babble which he obviously pulled himself away from polishing his rifle to script.

By: SamHamilton

SamHamilton — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0000

Ah, I see see.

By: jarvo1

jarvo1 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:40:06 +0000

Why does Christianity harbour so many paranoid nut balls like this guy? Amway is owned by the church of satan!!!! Didn't you know don't buy Amway… This is one reason I want nothing to do with the label of Christian. This religion so married to ideology of capitalism and disregard of creation makes me sick to the stomach. Go back and have another interview on Jesus Camp buddy!!

By: squeaky

squeaky — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:45:42 +0000

Aye–the problem with remove comments…

By: danielspencer

danielspencer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:54:44 +0000

aimed at a comment thats been removed mate
which i agree makes mine look well dumb

By: SamHamilton

SamHamilton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:50:55 +0000

I've yet to hear anyone make the argument that because the Bible doesn't speak of global warming, it doesn't exist and never will.

By: SamHamilton

SamHamilton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:49:29 +0000

The emails do not show there is no global warming.

By: SamHamilton

SamHamilton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:48:17 +0000

No, Don, we're not supposed to ignore the conflict of interest of groups that receive money from Exxon-Mobil. We're supposed to be skeptical of them. And we're supposed to be just as skeptical of the claims of scientists who are deeply invested in proving that AGW exists and whose funding streams and livelihood depends on making AGW seem as awful as possible, particularly when the UEA doesn't have the data on which it bases its models and assumptions. And, how could the data be readily available to anyone if FOIA requests were necessary to obtain it? (See the link below for numerous quotes that imply that there was significant data and calculations hidden from public review.) In addition, there are emails from computer programmers saying that the models they've been asked to construct are severely flawed. But the scientists couldn't admit this; they couldn't admit doubt because that would lend credence to the AGW skeptics. I can understand not wanting to admit doubt, but that's not science; that's dogmatism.

I'm not saying AGW is a bunch of bunk. What I'm saying, and what the stolen emails show us, is that it's not settled science that humans are the primary cause of changing climate or what long term climate change will be. It's scientific discovery in flux.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scien...

By: WaveTossed

WaveTossed — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:13:24 +0000

Actually, there is global warming. Just look at the melting polar ice caps. The questions are: is this global warming being caused solely by carbon emissions? If we pile all of our resources into stopping carbon emissions, will this truly stop the warming process? Or is it possible that the warming process might be part of a naturallly occuring cycles — which we'll have to adapt to. Questions like this get lost in all of the politics and rhetoric on all sides.

By: squeaky

squeaky — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:00:06 +0000

“ther eis no global warming.”

Go to the Maldives or coastal villages in Alaska and say that. I wonder what response you would get?

By: anotherqauker

anotherqauker — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:07:06 +0000

Its not true. ther eis no global warming. these”hacker” showed this. ignore it all you want. If you look at what they want to do to “overcome” this global warming your see it has nothing to do with stopping it. anyone with an open mind can see that. cap and tax doesnt work. except to controll business. nothing they propose will help the poor. like its been said give it time it will reveal itself to be false. Holdren wrote just 30 years ago we would be in a global COOLING. now hes all in with global warming.

By: BuckeyeDon

BuckeyeDon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:58:11 +0000

By the way, they didn't lose, misplace, or hide the data. It still exists at the original collection sites and at other locations. They had limited storage space on their own system, so they couldn't store it all there. Their budget isn't all that large to allow them to have all the electronic storage space that they might want or need.

Gosh, maybe they ought to apply for some of that evil grant money, you know, those millions that will make them so powerful.

By: BuckeyeDon

BuckeyeDon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:36:21 +0000

So we're supposed to believe the word of a small group of criminals (hackers=burglars and thieves) who cowardly stole into a computer above the word of thousands of climate researchers, some of whom have risked their own lives in gathering climate data from remote parts of the earth? (Ohio State's glaciologist Lonnie Thompson comes to mind; he and his crew have scaled remote Andean glaciers to bring back ice core samples for study. On one expedition, he almost fell into an abyss; on another, a researcher was killed in a fall).

We're supposed to accept a huge conspiracy among scientists to hide data? The data has always been readily available to anyone. We're supposed to believe that because a handful of scientists have revealed that they are human and said a few unwise things (what kinds of things might you say to your own colleagues in private about any individuals involved an organized and well-funded campaign to systematically discredit you and your work) that they are less trustworthy than the burglars and thieves that hacked into the UEA computer?