Climate Justice Clips: Countdown to Copenhagen, Day 7

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The emails do not show there is no global warming.

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

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...

The emails do not show there is no global warming.

Ah, I see see.

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

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!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

you havent read about the lies in the global warming hock I guess. Yes we need to keep the environment clean but really the UN bla bla bla is ridiculus. they have no clue and could care less about the poor. Its called power thats all the UN is about. this (eco) prophets and (eco)evangelist is not christian or scriptual. Tax and cap will not help the poor you crazy and dillusional to think it will. who gets hurt the worst when taxes are raised, the poor. when buisnesses get hit with extra burdens who pays the consumer. Logic should tell you this global warming is over blown and being used to creat elitism for the wealthy not help the poor.

While these documents are still being combed through, what has been shown so far is that there are attempts by scientists to 1) silence those who question anthropogenic global warming; 2) marginalize peer-reviewed journals that publish AGW skeptics; 3) manipulate data so that it better proves AGW; and 4) hide data from FOIA requests. On top of all this, it turns out the hard data on which the institution in question (one of the most important institutions studying climate change, and one on which the IPCC bases many of its findings) does not exist anymore. Therefore, no one can verify the accuracy of what they're saying. Essentially, the scientists (whose billions of dollars worth of funding is based on perpetuating a fear of AGW), are saying "trust us, we know what the data used to say."

These emails don't debunk AGW, but they do debunk the myths that 1) we can trust scientists simply because they assert they're disinterested, unbiased scientists; 2) there is consensus within the scientific community; 3) relying on peer reviewed journals is not satisfactory; and 4) the models some scientists use to forecast climate change cannot be trusted.

Charles Murray also adds this:

The people who made those adjustments are, we now know, desperately invested in proving the truth of man-made global warming. And they lost the data. That's more damning than anything else in the emails. If you're doing important work that you know will be controversial, you don't lose the data. You document everything you did to the data. You make the data available to others. If you don't do all of those things, people are right to ignore anything you have published about them.

As another commentator said, those who believe in AGW point to the hundred thousand dollars that a group like the Competitive Enterprise Institute got from ExxonMobil when CEI publishes something critical of AGW scientists and shout "conflict of interests!" but there's no questioning of scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from governments and interest groups that are deeply invested in proving that AGW is real. While we've known for a while we shouldn't take power hungry politicians and professional bureaucrats at their word when it comes to climate change, unfortunately, it's now clear can't trust some of these scientists.

you havent read about the lies in the global warming hock I guess. Yes we need to keep the environment clean but really the UN bla bla bla is ridiculus. they have no clue and could care less about the poor. Its called power thats all the UN is about. this (eco) prophets and (eco)evangelist is not christian or scriptual. Tax and cap will not help the poor you crazy and dillusional to think it will. who gets hurt the worst when taxes are raised, the poor. when buisnesses get hit with extra burdens who pays the consumer. Logic should tell you this global warming is over blown and being used to creat elitism for the wealthy not help the poor.

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?