On the Climategate emails
Doubts about how much humans are contributing to changes in the climate have had an increasing number of things in their favor: a leveling off and even cooling of global temperatures over the past decade; the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) doesn’t account fully for a number of natural effects on the climate; admissions that the likes of Al Gore have trumped up the potential consequences of global warming in order to gain public attention; serious questions about the accuracy of the data that AGW proponents cite, and the scientific rigor with which the data have been collected.
What was missing was a paper trail indicating that warmists were manipulating the exchange of information and attempting to silence skeptics. Until now.
The recent release of several dozen megabytes of information from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has struck a huge blow against the politics, and perhaps the science, of AGW. It’s unclear whether these data — including thousands of emails (UPDATE: sorry, make that “emails and other documents”) from some of the world’s most prominent warmists — were hacked by an outsider or leaked by a whistleblower on the inside. But the people who wrote and received the emails have verified their veracity.
Lest you doubt the impact of these emails, know that one of AGW’s greatest fanatics, George Monbiot of London’s Guardian newspaper, has described them as “a major blow” that “could scarcely be more damaging.” The fact that Monbiot tries to play down their impact on the science of AGW by concocting an over-the-top fake email, saying that only this kind of email would prove an over-arching conspiracy among warmists, merely shows that this crowd can do nothing but deal in hyperbole.
Science writer Ron Bailey — who, perhaps surprisingly for a staffer at uber-libertarian Reason Magazine, is convinced by the science of AGW, or at least was 18 months ago when I met him in Copenhagen — was compelled to write:
Hmmm. Data not agreeing with model predictions. Very interesting. And of course, Flannery is right, science does work through “a robust interchange and testing of ideas.” But interchanging ideas about how to hijack some aspects of peer review and by trying to suppress the work of researchers with whom one disagrees? Messy indeed.
Now, on to the emails.
I haven’t read through even a fraction of the emails, so I will only pass on what others, who have spent more time looking at them, have found.
One good summary is at Powerline blog, which includes emails suggesting that the CRU scientists tried to eliminate inconvenient “blips” in the data; complained about journalists, specifically Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, who were “not as predictable as we’d like”; and mused about ways to make sure the grant money from green-friendly corporations kept coming (while complaining about companies that funded alternative viewpoints). More from Powerline here, here and here.
Perhaps the most damning email threads describe the lengths to which the CRU crew went to silence debate. Pajamas Media has done a great job compiling messages along these lines. The PJM articles include: Charlie Martin on how the men violated the social contract of science; Rand Simberg on scientists as politicians; and Christopher Monckton, a British lord who gave an incredibly informative and entertaining talk this summer at a Georgia Public Policy Foundation event, and whose offer to debate Al Gore on the science of global warming has gone unaccepted, on why the CRU scientists are criminals.
A longtime thorn in the side of the AGW crowd, Steve McIntyre, hosts several discussion threads on some of the implications of the emails, including some back-and-forth about computer coding that I frankly do not understand in the least, here.
This undoubtedly won’t end the debate about global warming, but then again the only people who were trying all along to end the debate were the AGW crowd. What it ought to do, though, is provide real impetus for these supposed scientists to follow the normal procedures of science — including revealing their data so that others can test their hypotheses, a staple of scientific research that the CRU crew had until now avoided with all their might.
And at the very least, this ought to be reason enough for Congress, and the poo-bahs at next month’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, to back off any dramatic new anti-carbon measures until we know whether the scandal goes deeper than this.
***
Find me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
162 comments Add your comment
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
9:48 am
Weird, I just posted an article on your last blog about the global warming scam.
TGT
November 24th, 2009
9:55 am
It’s good to see someone at the AJC paying attention to this. AGW, as John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel put it, is the “greatest scam in history.” (Personally I believe that title belongs to Darwinian Evolution, but that’s just me.) Also, AGW, as Australian geologist Ian Plimer says is the “new religion of First World urban elites.” I suppose we will see how strong their “faith” is.
lmno
November 24th, 2009
10:08 am
we can all agree that there is too much man made pollution and that conservation is wise. That should be good enough.
As fare as the “biggest scam in history” that honor would go to teh Debeers Corporation who convinced us that the non-rare diamond was something we needed.
Chris Broe
November 24th, 2009
10:21 am
Speaking of unfounded theories. I wonder if Isaac Newton ever figured on high gravity.
I think there’s more accurate science in the way the Coors light mountains on the cans turn blue when they’re cold.
Kick Me
November 24th, 2009
10:29 am
Kyle, are you really going to use secondhand, sensational reportage of “unread emails” to justify an empty skeptisism of the science of climate change? Stick with the experts, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/). There’s consensus among the 10,000+ scientists from virtually every country on the legitamacy of the science of climate change.
Chris Broe
November 24th, 2009
10:33 am
I think what Kyle is saying is that if Diebold hadn’t gansta’d up the election for W in 2000, then by now Al Gore would have popped a cap-and-trade in America’s ass.
Icarus
November 24th, 2009
10:36 am
Dangerous precedent we’re setting here Kyle.
Sarah Palin had her Yahoo account hacked during the Presidential campaign. Those of us on the right screamed foul, and rightly so. Now we have emails stolen from folks we disagree with on the left, and we’re trumpeting this as a breakthrough?
As someone who remembers “dangerous global cooling” that was forced on my elementary school class in the late 70’s – and for the same reason that global warming was pushed in the 90’s – and global “change” is pushed today – I very much doubt the arguments from the left on this topic.
But I think the methods here take us a bit too far, and we won’t have the moral high ground the next time someone on “our” side gets hacked.
AJStrata
November 24th, 2009
10:42 am
You may like to know that those ‘blips’ were in the CRU data released, and show that the 2000’s are not much warmer (and in many places cooler) than the 1940’s. It seems the MWP was not the most recent time in history when we had similar warming, followed by a huge cooling off.
You can see the CRU data here: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11466
And you can see my assessment of the CRU’s own declared accuracy as it demonstrates there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 100 years: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
What we have are people hiding the truth of their own data so as to tell a completely false story, and get rich and famous
Jess
November 24th, 2009
10:46 am
Thank heavens a few seeds of doubt are finally being planted. I am a conservative who is interested in the environment. I believe improving the quality of our water and air are worthy goals, and can support reasonable efforts to do so. I am older and can remember when things were much worse than today, and would be happy to see them continue to improve.
What really bothers me, however, is our government, through the power of research dollars, trying to scare the american people into going along with an agenda they would never support if not for fear of the oceans rising and swallowing up coastline.
I think two things signal a turning point in this debate however. One is the increasing use of the term “climate change” rather than “global warming”. Climate change is really a meaningless term since the climate has always changed. And the second is the courage of Scientists who have been quieted by their grant hungry bosses, and who are now coming out.
Just hope it continues and gains strength before we saddle this country with an economy killing bill like cap-and-trade.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
10:48 am
Kick Me: The people alleged to have authored the emails have had the better part of a week to deny any or all of them. So far, they haven’t made a peep to that effect. There is every reason to believe that the emails are legitimate. As for “sticking with the experts” — these are the alleged experts! The work of Phil Jones and Michael Mann (the “hockey stick” creator) has featured most prominently in the IPCC’s work. Now they are revealed to have denied other researchers access to their data, discussed destroying data rather than hand it over in a Freedom of Information request, and planned to keep contrary views out of IPCC reports. So even if these are just a few bad apples, you can’t just separate them from the IPCC like that.
TGT
November 24th, 2009
10:49 am
Who’s to say this was a hacker? I know this is what is mostly being reported, but how do we know this was not a “whistleblower?”
dewstarpath
November 24th, 2009
10:57 am
I thought that the “global cooling” scare of the late
1970’s (I was also in grade school then) was the result
of the spectre of thermonuclear war.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
10:58 am
Icarus raises a good point. But I think this case is more similar to the Pentagon Papers case than that of Palin’s email account. (Interestingly, The New York Times deemed the Pentagon Papers, like the existence of the government wiretapping program a few years ago, worthy of publication regardless of the risk to national security…but the newspaper has chosen not to publish these emails.)
These were government employees, using their government email accounts to discuss government work that was shaping government policy — and the avoidance of certain government laws, insofar as they were trying to dodge a Freedom of Information request, up to the point of destroying the requested documents. It’s far different from accessing a personal email account, as in Palin’s case. I think there’s a sufficient distinction here to argue for one and against the other.
Here’s another question: Is this more of a whistleblower case? It’s still unclear who exactly obtained and released this information. But isn’t the very nature of this information and its release what whistleblower cases are all about?
dewstarpath
November 24th, 2009
11:00 am
- (CONT.) Although greenhouse gas emissions from
factories (and even nuclear plant cooling towers) was
probably another accused culprit.
JA
November 24th, 2009
11:02 am
CRU has called it a “hacker” and a “hacking incident” because the term hacking has a negative and even illegal connotation.
“Whistleblower” on the other hand has the implication that something bad was happenning at the CRU and that the whistleblower merely followed the freedom of information laws and exposed the collusion.
Subtle terminology there. I’m glad that the AJC took the more neutral term of “released.” I think that until we know for certain whether this was a hacking incident or a whistleblower release, we should use the neutral term of “release.” lest we subtly play into the spin machine.
Road Scholar
November 24th, 2009
11:02 am
Kyle, this is interesting in that conservatives do not recognize science, esp when it conflicts with their personal beliefs. The constant berating of intellectual “elitists” makes one wonder why they even go to doctors. As stated above, the increase in polution levels, esp as shown by the increase in asthma cases and severity of these cases, should be enough for us to clean up our act. Add to that the growth in world population and the increased use of petroleum by the “undeveloped” nations will add to that polution in the future, if nothing is done.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
11:04 am
Although I currently live in Kansas, I grew up in Warner Robins, and always enjoy reading the Journal and Constitution. I am delighted to see that the Constitution has someone on its editorial board who can see through the nonsense of the AGW crowd. I spent several decades in the Washington DC area, and was involved heavily in the Y2K ‘crisis’. As far as I can see, the hysteria surrounding AGW is on a par with the hysteria surrounding Y2K, and is just another example of ‘millennial fervor’, as occurs periodically around the world. As usual, the passion on the subject is pumped up by leaders who should, and probably do, know better. Fortunately, there is enough silliness in the claims of the AGW crowd to alert people who know how to think. And now, we have evidence in the paper trail that not only are they engaged in bad science, but they are knowingly and purposefully engaged in activities to bolster their viewpoint in clear violation of the precepts of the scientific method, which can be expressed as: make the prediction, do the experiment, compare results to reality, modify theory if necessar, and make your theory, data, and results available publically for a real and honest peer review.
It is to be expected that the passionate believers in AGW should use any argument at their disposal to downplay the significance of the information in those emails; they have their position, and they are defending it. But that is politics, not science. We should leave that to Senator Gore, that is his bailiwick. We should simply demand that the data and calculations which have led to the AGW hypothesis be made public, and let science do what it does best, determine as much of the truth as we can, and honestly admit when we don’t know.
I see from news reports that the congress is beginning an investigation into this matter, as well they must, far too much money and the political future of our country and the world is at stake.
May you live in interesting times, as goes the old Chinese curse. And here we are, indeeed.
Icarus
November 24th, 2009
11:06 am
If it was a hack, bad.
If it was a whistleblower, I’m O.K. with it.
Frankly, been covered up trying to finish up work pre-holiday, so haven’t followed the details close enough. While most reports I’ve scanned used the term “hack”, I understand that the term could easily be changed depending on the actual circumstances of how these came about.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
11:12 am
Kyle, God told Noah that the climate in his part of the world was going to change and that he should build and ark. I wonder what would have happened if he had told God he needed more proof.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
11:12 am
To lmno and Road Scholar: Sure, I agree that we should try to curb pollution. I just don’t think carbon dioxide — the main target of the AGW crowd — is a pollutant, and therefore it isn’t the substance that we ought to be most concerned about. In fact, I’d argue that we are doing less about real pollution precisely because of the fixation with CO2.
And, Road Scholar, the increasing questions about the accuracy of AGW theory will be a big test of whether liberals are willing to “recognize science, esp when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.”
Here’s the question that has never been answered: In what scenario, with what kind of evidence, would warmists be willing to concede that they were wrong about AGW? If there’s no answer to that question, then they’re not really engaging in science.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
11:13 am
retiredds: Are you suggesting climate scientists are God?
Jess
November 24th, 2009
11:14 am
Road Scholar,
To say conservatives do not recognize science is an awfully broad statement. To say they recognize bad science when they see it would be much more accurate.
Very few conservatives I know want to harm the environment. Not much kickback from them when we’ve implemented anti pollution measures in the past, and there probably will not be in the future. To use “bought” science to try and change the entire world economy by fear mongering is a different story.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
11:16 am
To clarify, Icarus: If the data turns out to have been stolen, as opposed to being released by a whistleblower, I would support the prosecution of the hacker(s) for any laws that were broken. But I also think the British government should now investigate whether the emailers themselves broke the FOI law.
TGT
November 24th, 2009
11:16 am
Road Scholar says, it “is interesting in that conservatives do not recognize science, esp when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.”
As if this is not the case with the AGW crowd. Again, as Ian Plimer (an ardent atheist) points out, “Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and Western (failed) Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read (IPCC reports), has prophets (Gore) who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries…; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences.”
Leave it to an atheist to recognize a religion when he sees one.
John
November 24th, 2009
11:18 am
its been obvious for quite some time that the pro warmer pushers have had to get quite creative in their quest.. its good that things are out in the open before we take the next step.. Public inquiry would do a world of good.. do we have the stomach for it is another story..
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
11:20 am
With regard to ‘hack’ vs ‘whistleblower’: As noted on another site (I apologize for not remembering where it was) it isn’t necessary to invoke either demons or angels in this instance: common stupidity and carelessness is enough to explain how the emails were obtained. Evidently those folks were in the habit of taking shortcuts and leaving batches of information on publicly accessible ftp sites, which were ‘regularly trawled’ (per one of Phil Jones’ emails.) It seems that this has happened to them before, but without such dire consequences.
haybeav
November 24th, 2009
11:41 am
What people here are not realizing is these emails were all supposed to have been made public years ago due to the Freedom of Information act in the UK. But the scientists at the IPCC knew how damning this data was, so they intentionally withheld it from public eyes.
Some of the emails specifically talk about ways to withhold the email…
Hard Right Hook
November 24th, 2009
11:43 am
Why did the Vikings call it Greenland when they discovered it in 982?
The aspect of climate cycles seems to have some support. The issue is that they seem to take 500 to 1000 years to complete.
The thermometer has only been around since 1724; data collection was a little rough in the old days.
Rmoen
November 24th, 2009
11:44 am
Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth are the lead authors of one of the most important chapters in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. It’s clear to me that the United States needs our own objective, transparent ‘Climate Truth Commission’ to think through global warming.
For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we’ve had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
11:46 am
What I liked about the whole Climate Change/Global warming snake oil show, was the phrase, “consensus”.
I don’t remember all the sciences from my school days, but consensus wasn’t part of it. I do not recall there ever being consensus in science. If something can not be reproduced over and over then it is not accepted as valid. For example, the cold fusion headlines in the late 20th century.
k
November 24th, 2009
11:49 am
“This undoubtedly won’t end the debate about global warming, but then again the only people who were trying all along to end the debate were the AGW crowd.”
Wrong. Mcintyre and company were not trying to end the debate, they were simply striving to have one! They have been vilified for asking questions that are part of the *normal* scientific process. The AGW crowd is the one with the hypothesis. They are the ones making an assertion. The burden of proof is upon them but they refuse to open their work to inspection. Now we know why, the data is fabricated to support a desired outcome. It’s no wonder they resisted like they have. But shame on the media for steam-rolling “the skeptics” who where doing nothing wrong this entire time.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
11:55 am
Kyle, I find it interesting that you would ask that question. No, scientists are not God. Scientists have been endowed by a Creator with a brain. A scientist can use that however he or she wishes, for good or evil. What I am suggesting is, so it is clear to you and others, that there are signs, indicators, clues, etc. that are out there. It is up to us whether we want to believe them or not. If the changes are ignored or denied then we are at our own peril. Noah did not deny what he was told, and I am sure got a massive amount of criticism and ridicule while building the ark from the doubters. Maybe had they asked Noah a few questions about why he was doing what he was doing some might have done like he did. As you might be aware, my argument is speculative but I think it has some parallels for today. To deny climate change at this point is rather foolish, just ask some of the hunters and fishermen in the mid-west and north west whether they see signs of climate change. And by the way, the science of climate change is settled, what isn’t settled is what we are going to do about it. We can sit around and argue all we want, but Mother Nature doesn’t really care what we think (i.e., humans are not the center of the universe). She will do what she will do regardless of whether we believe in climate change or not.
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
12:09 pm
retiredds – the science of climate change is settled – this is pure bull.
Have you not looked outside your ivory tower?
No warming since the 90’s. Earliest snow storms in the mountain states.
The climate trends are not influence in great part by man and his machines. It is powered by something greater than puny man.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
12:11 pm
Al Gore said that the debate was over. Now, I don’t remember Al debating anyone on the subject. Most people are skeptical when a hack politician comes a knockin’ and tells us all that we are doomed unless we listen to him. Al Gore was a Vandy flunk out who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
12:14 pm
El Jefe, there is no doubt that the climate changes. But, the problem is that politicians want us to believe that WE are the problem. It’s pure arrogance and stupidity on their part.
Quick story: Last winter it was 9 degrees outside on Michigan Ave. As I walked to work, two Green Peace “activists’ walked up to me and asked me for support to stop Global Warming. I said, well, with all due respect I welcome warm temps right about now. One of them yelled at me “THAT”S NOT HOW IT WORKS MAN!” I yelled back, “YOU CAN’T EVEN EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS!” They both got angry and then I asked them if either one of them were Climatologists. They were confused. I’m guessing it had something to do with the pound of weed they smoked the night before.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
12:19 pm
I see El Jefe has taken the bait and already made his pronouncement. So, El Jefe, you are 100% certain of your position and that any which deviates from yours is, to use your words, “pure bull”. So, you and I disagree about this and that’s all there is. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think I’m going to have a cup of coffee.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
12:19 pm
Retiredds,
Signs and portents may be available, but they are generally recognized after the fact rather than before.
You say that ‘the science of climate change is settled,’ and perhaps it is in your mind. But a good scientist always questions, people are still doing experiments on Newton’s and Einstein’s theories, looking for exceptions, not to disprove them necessarily but to extend them.
Cutting off debate, which is what the AGW folks want, is a parliamentary procedure when a vote is necessary, but this arena should not be political, regardless of what Ms. Pelosi wants.
And in regard to Mother Nature doing what she wants, rather than what we want, it is certainly true. The objective is to discover what she wants, which will not be accomplished by cooking data and hiding information.
I certainly agree that we need to decide what if anything we are going to do about it. You should agree, however, given your statement that humans are not the center of the universe, that attempting to change global dynamics by our actions smacks of the fallacy of central position, which states that we are responsible for everything about us, and that someone also needs to be punished for anything that goes wrong, ourselves if no one else.
But all that’s just philosophy. We simply need to be able to confirm or deny AGW calculations, and we can’t do that without seeing the data and analyzing their methodology.
JP
TGT
November 24th, 2009
12:24 pm
“The science of climate change is settled.”
Yes, it’s settled. Climates do indeed change. However, what is not settled is the claim by AGW alarmists that man’s burning of fossil fuels is, in any significant way, warming the planet.
John
November 24th, 2009
12:26 pm
When the stakes are sky high you dont discount information because it was lifted in a illegal manner.. it is what it is and should be taken into account based on its own.. They are dishonest deceptive bullies that cherry pick who and what makes the final cut to push their political agenda.. Peer review is a running joke.. The fact that billions have poured into their pockets is CRIMINAL
Warren Bonesteel
November 24th, 2009
12:30 pm
The problem with Mann, the IPCC report, et al, is that they have always ignored that big yellow thing in the sky.
Now (If you actually read any of their emails and documents) we find that they’ve been running a three-card monte game on us. By admiting hat the material came from their organization, Mann, et al, have admitted to tax evasion, fraud, and conspiracy to committ fraud and tax evasion, among many other crimes. Read the emails and douments. It’s all right there in black and white. There’s no accusations needed. They’ve already confessed.
Jefferson
November 24th, 2009
12:31 pm
Some people are never happy.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
12:37 pm
Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal addressing congressional action on these emails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today’s_Most_Popular
Kyle, if there’s anything in the Journal about it, I didn’t see it, sorry.
This is the article that says it may have been neither a hack nor a whistleblower:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%c2%ae-an-alternate-explanation/
Anen Wayman
November 24th, 2009
12:39 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
In other words, maybe
Thebes
November 24th, 2009
12:42 pm
Take a look at some of the comments in the source code. Programming code is commented by the author to let others know what a function does… it stands alone and can not be “taken out of context”. The code is even more incriminating (and I am not using that word in the colloquial sense) than the emails. This is FRAUD.
Some of the code comments talk about a function set up to ignore certain kinds of data. Other places talk about the need to not use the data created for the past(!) after 1960 without hand correcting it so it looks authentic.
I can’t say that the earth didn’t get warmer in the 90’s, but its not matching the “scientists” deluded vision of man killing earth. Now we see why, the facts were bent to fit the theory and we are not really all going to die. Some scientists are going to end up fired though…
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
12:48 pm
Presumably the consensus today is that global warming is just the latest in the long string of leftist hoaxes – Amchitka, Population Bomb, Coming ice Age, Freon causing Ozone erosion, DDT causing bird deaths, Keynesian economics. Our friends on the left are exceedingly slow learners, or are incredibly devious controllers.
StJ
November 24th, 2009
12:51 pm
This is just another angle in the Democrat/Socialist/Communist/UN plan to strip us of our rights. Good thing someone exposed the dirty little details…maybe that will help people wake up to what is really going on.
More taxation = less individual freedom.
Churchill's MOM
November 24th, 2009
12:51 pm
Raghead you are on a roll. Are you coming home fro Thanksgiving?
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
12:54 pm
My last comment still says “awaiting moderation.” Since all it does is point to the websites which I referenced earlier, does that mean linking to another website is forbidden here?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
12:59 pm
Dear Mom @ 12:51, thanks for asking, flying back to ATL tomorrow night, driving to the Tennessee reunion the next morning. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
1:02 pm
Good news, due to the mushrooming adverse publicity arising from exposure of the global warming fraud, President Chauncey will be changing the topic with his Afghanistan announcement, maybe today.
Intown Lib
November 24th, 2009
1:03 pm
I was waiting for you to write an article on this topic and predictably, you’ve used it to push forward the idea that Global Warming science is a giant conspiracy. But, perhaps you ought to give the flip side of this argument a chance:
Reveken from the NY Times: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.”
And from the same NY Times article:
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”
Let’s not jump to the conclusion that suddenly a bunch of ideologue naysayers are right that global warming is a hoax of some sort. Let’s continue to look at facts. Also, anyone who thinks science can somehow be completely removed from politics or that there is no political aspect to science is very naive.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
1:07 pm
I would like to suggest to those who have doubts about human influence on climate change I recommend that you Google “scientific opinion on climate change”. For the record I stand with the many scientific organizations that suggest that we (humans) have an impact. For that reason I have used the term that the science of climate change is settled. It is up to us to decide what to do with the information we are provided.
I add the following quote from the above referenced subject.
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]
Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
1:16 pm
Hey David……..this comment ……..”El Jefe, there is no doubt that the climate changes. But, the problem is that politicians want us to believe that WE are the problem. It’s pure arrogance and stupidity on their part.”
Only a person who doesn’t understand the big picture would make that comment…….Trees my friend Trees……..If you don’t for a moment think the cutting of rain forests, and development of forests into asphalt areas are not making a difference, perhaps you should look at the ice coverage over the arctic and Antarctic circles during the summer months in those regions !
Sunshine and Thunder
November 24th, 2009
1:16 pm
Kyle,
You said that the NYT has chosen not to report on these emails. Why hasn’t the AJC? Am I missing something?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:22 pm
k: When I say “AGW” I mean “Anthropogenic Global Warming” — i.e., the people who disagree with McIntyre. Not “Anti-Global Warming.”
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
1:24 pm
Al was a politician? I thought he was just a VP?
Anyway, who appointed him the climate deity?
The American People
November 24th, 2009
1:27 pm
Write an article about the SEIU 1000 members beating up Ken Hamidi for trying to exercising his right for free speech at their public meeting. Write about the hyocrisy of the fact that this is barely been a news story. Write about how Obama has as he says “worked with this organization all of his life” but they are keeping this very quiet. Write about the obvious fact that if a black man would have gone into a public meeting and had been beaten up by 4 white men it would be national news and their would be a public outcry on every news channel in this country. Thankyou.
El Jefe
November 24th, 2009
1:28 pm
retiredds,
We do not disagree on climate change, it is a natural occurrence. I am arguing about who is causing it.
Question, what temperature should it be?
Could it be we are too cool and it should be warmer?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:33 pm
Intown Lib: I was waiting for you to comment on my article on this topic and predictably, you’ve used it to misrepresent what I wrote.
I specifically wrote that this won’t end the debate, and that the appropriate future course is for the people who wrote these emails to subject their data to the rigorous testing which science demands, and which so far they have refused to allow. I specifically wrote that the paper trail here relates to warmists manipulating the exchange of data and trying to silence skeptics, not that all of the science is just one big conspiracy. That’s exactly what these emails reveal.
As for the idea that this is some sort of limited group of people acting in bad faith — they may be limited in number, but they have outsized influence on the climate science community and the reports of the IPCC. Let’s not minimize how this scandal affects the credibility of some key players in the debate — and the need to re-examine everything that has been put in doubt as a result.
As for science mixing with politics: It may be naive not to expect some mixing, but it is irresponsible not to identify the hyper-politicization of science when it happens.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:37 pm
Sunshine: Not sure whether we had an article in the print edition, but I know we ran an AP story about the emails online yesterday. In any case, we don’t (so far as I know) have a blog along the lines of Revkin’s Dot-Earth, which still is only indirectly writing about the contents of the emails.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
1:43 pm
Why baseball is superior to science: In 1919, the third-best ballplayer ever agreed to fix the game. Three years later he was barred by the game, for his misbehavior In 2009, when evidence that two big players.attempted to fix the game, the leftists circle the wagons to protect the guilty. Ethics is found in baseball, but not in science. The biggest difference between the actions: Joe Jackson still hit 0.480 in the world series, but M-M conspired to destroy the reputations of those who disagreed with them.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
1:44 pm
El Jefe, I, quite frankly, don’t know what the long term temperature range should be. I am sure there is some scientific article out there which posits a suggestion or two about that. You could very well be right about the planet being too cool, but I somehow (no scientific evidence) doubt that is the problem. Ice caps melt because it’s too warm, not too cold. One piece of evidence I can tell you: when I was growing up in the 1950’s in the northeast our streams and small lakes would freeze every winter in January and February. Those same small lakes and streams haven’t frozen over for at least the last three decades ( I have discussed this with friends and family who still live there). Just using that small sliver of evidence tells me that cooling is not an issue in that area.
A question I have for you is, what is the “tipping point”? The “tipping point” being that one degree of difference for a protracted time that makes the trend irreversible.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 24th, 2009
1:45 pm
Extract from the emails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:53 pm
Peter, I believe GOD is in control over everything. Man can not make a dent in God’s creation.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:56 pm
Peter, if global warming is real then how come NO ONE can agree on what it is that causes it?
You guys always pretend to know everything about global warming, then change the name of it to something else like climate change, and finally…………….still can’t agree on anything.
Bottom line: Al Gore’s movie was crap and many people have picked it apart. People even discovered that he used props in the one scene where the ice breaks off. He also used doctored footage of polar bears.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
1:57 pm
JackPoynter: Your comment was in moderation because it included more than one link, which automatically raises our spam filter’s suspicions…I’ve cleared it from moderation now.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
1:59 pm
El Jefe, someone in congress actually called Al Gore a prophet. Congressman Markey (D-MA)
Like the saying goes: Beware of prophets who seek profit.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:06 pm
Kyle, sorry for the long post. I just needed to get those out there for the cult followers of Al Gore.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:08 pm
Sorry, Axelfraud. Rules are rules. Please provide a link instead.
Steve
November 24th, 2009
2:12 pm
El Jefe,
Al Gore appointed himself as Climate Diety
At one point he was a member of Congress prior to being elected VP. I’m not sure if the Senate position came before or after he invented the internet.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:20 pm
Kyle Wingfield, just this once?
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:21 pm
I took down a long cut-and-paste by Peter just yesterday.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
2:22 pm
Kyle, perhaps, and this is conjecture just as the assumptions of intent in your latest pot-stirring article, but perhaps the fear was that the blips in the data, which if you had a clue about what scientific data looks like you’d know is normal, would result in those with the real politica-only agenda to gain time-wasting traction. Should they have suppressed it? No, but I can empathize. Now, hacks such as yourself get to cast doubt on issues you have neither the intelligence or the education to comprehend (though I imagine with your detailed work on carbon dioxide referenced above you may have picked up a thing or two) and pander to the ubiquitous pathetics who defer to ‘God’s Plan’ or complain that the an immensly complex issue can’t be dealt with in a timely and inexpensive manner. Write about things you can comprehend, your local City Council, the latest miracle cure for early onset male baldness, but do the world a favor and leave science to those of us who chose something other than yellow journalism and shill for the Republican Party as a career.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
2:22 pm
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4870
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:23 pm
OK, thanks Kyle
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
2:31 pm
May I remind everyone that the prophets of old were instructed to tell the people what they didn’t want to hear. I don’t want any of you to jump to the conclusion that I am covering up a notion that Al Gore is a prophet because I am not (is that clear). But it is also well known that a prophet is not declared a prophet in his or her life time, and usually many hundreds of years later. So, be suspicious, but who knows what people will see as fact 200-500 years from now, if we leave them a planet worth living on.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
2:32 pm
NeverTrust: Try reading the emails in question before you attempt to justify what they did.
The emails’ authors were explicitly trying “to hide the decline” in temperatures and “to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’” a reference to the Medieval Warm Period whose existence and/or importance they deny. One does not have to assume anything about their intent when they talk about deleting emails subject to an FOI request and to keep certain articles out of scientific journals, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
If you have a better argument to make than speciously and lazily questioning my intelligence or education or career choice, bring it.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:33 pm
NeverTrustARepublican,
Well, you can trust me, I’m an independent.
Just speaking for myself, I tend to discount any post that contains ad hominem attacks as irrelevant to the issue.
I would suspect that turns off other people as well.
JP
mike
November 24th, 2009
2:37 pm
NeverTrust –
You seem to be ignonrant of the emails’ contents. It goes far beyond suppressing a “blip”. These emails demonstrate a conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Based on your silly name, I can assume that you are simply having a knee-jerk reaction, as most mindless partisans do. Just for once try actually informing yourself before bleating your stale talking points.
Joan
November 24th, 2009
2:40 pm
The global warming scam was a way for Gore to win the Nobel and Oscar, a cause for the numb-heads in Hollywood to champion, and what is worse, a scam that has cost, and will cost, American companies a fortune to try to “fix” something that isn’t broken. I hope this does bust a cap in “cap and trade”. Obama just acts like it is business as usual, not investigating the AGW release–but marching on with the blinders firmly affixed to push his agenda–which I am beginning to believe is to destroy this country for good and all.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
2:42 pm
For those of you who dislike Al Gore you needn’t worry that he is a prophet. Prophets in the Bible were sent by God to tell the people what they didn’t want to hear. It usually took 300-500 years for the prophet to be recognized as such. So, as I said, you needn’t worry. If Al Gore is a prophet it wont be known in our lifetime so you don’t need to lose too much sleep over it or argue whether he is or isn’t. BUT if, in fact, he really is a prophet and we don’t heed his advice that will be tragic to future generations (who just might be related to you and me).
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
2:49 pm
JackP….who cares?
Kyle, ‘hiding the decline’ is the data I said they shouldn’t have hidden but can understand why they did. Articles such as yours prove them right in their worry, they don’t justify their actions. A beetr choice would’ve been to publish it and then continue to attempt to educate those without their grasp of the issue but with a sincere interest that we get this right. You don’t belong to that group.
Better argument to what? Your ‘feeling’ that it’s all a scam based on your considerable background in earth sciences? Your intuition that tells you that carbon dioxide is not a concern and is in fact good for the planet in whatever quantites Jim Inhofe recommends? Your lack of education (in this arena only as I’m sure your a wonderful dinner convesationalist) is kind of the point. As is your agenda, an issue you feebly try and transfer.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
2:53 pm
NTaR,
It only matters if you’re trying to convince people, rather than just deliver a rant.
Excuse me, I shouldn’t try to educate people on their delivery method, but it’s an old habit from when the children were still home.
JP
mike
November 24th, 2009
2:58 pm
Between retiredds’s labeling of Gore as a prophet and NTR’s support for hiding facts that hinder ideology, you would think that maybe liberals aren’t anywhere near the “intellectuals” that they like to think they are
Peter
November 24th, 2009
2:58 pm
Wow……..David….. What a crazy comment…………
” Peter, I believe GOD is in control over everything. Man can not make a dent in God’s creation. ”
Questions for you then…..Has God been telling us to cut down all the Trees and pollute the rivers?
Over Fish the waters ? Kill off the whales, slaughter the wild Wolves from helicopters ?
Cut off the tops of Monkey heads and eat the brain while the monkey is alive ?
Does God tell folks to kill…… or in George Bush’s case tell him to start a WAR, and incinerate tons of Bombs that make the earth warmer ?
Gee ……….. seems like God’s hand is NOT in Everything !
Look in the mirror……hopefully you are seeing God…….. but folks do have a hand in things !
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:01 pm
JackP, read the responses. These are not people seeking education, they’re seeking confirmation that we can stick our heads in the sand, save some money, and continue distrusting anything with a reading level above a typical Reader’s Digest article. I responded so Our new propagandist can be seen as no more a reliable commenter on this issue than I am on, say, the psychosexual overtone of the works of Franz Kafka. Difference is, I don’t pretend to have anything important to say on that subject.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:01 pm
Peter –
Can you shout in caps a little more and include more exclamation points in your rants? You are right on the cusp of being a textbook angry internet guy. I hate to see you sell yourself short.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:03 pm
Hey Mike…..Got milk ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:06 pm
Peter –
Nope, but unlike you, I’ve got a point.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:07 pm
That is what ? You know all ? Yours is the ONLY way ? Blinded by the light ?
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:10 pm
Well Mike it appears you are condescending……….Not a god like quality !
“Between retiredds’s labeling of Gore as a prophet and NTR’s support for hiding facts that hinder ideology, you would think that maybe liberals aren’t anywhere near the “intellectuals” that they like to think they are
”
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:10 pm
NeverTrust: I’ll say it one more time: All I have ever said on this topic is that we need more debate, more examination of the facts, and more transparency and less politics from the self-proclaimed experts. I have never described AGW as a conspiracy, only as a theory. Point to something I’ve written to the contrary.
You are the one ascribing “feeling” and “intuition” and ignorance to other people, namely me, and describing my calls for more debate, etc. as “stick[ing] our heads in the sand.” Most everyone else on here is talking about ideas and facts; you are the one stuck on the people themselves and what you believe to be our shortcomings.
If you can’t grasp that, as well as the difference between what I’ve said and what you think/wish/imagine I’d said, then there’s really no point in continuing this discussion.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:17 pm
Peter, you are making meaning where there isn’t any. I didn’t say he was a prophet, I said that if he is a prophet it won’t be known in our life time. I also said that if that in fact becomes the case and we don’t heed his advice future generations will suffer the consequences. You also jump to the conclusion that I am a liberal (by your inference). You see, much of the problem with today’s discourse is that so many make assumptions that are without merit, and your labeling is without merit.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Hey Kyle……..with this statement…….. :” Doubts about how much humans are contributing to changes in the climate have had an increasing number of things in their favor: a leveling off and even cooling of global temperatures over the past decade. ”
How do you account for the diminishing amount of summer ice on both poles, proven by annual photos taken from the air ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Peter –
“Well Mike it appears you are condescending……….Not a god like quality !”
What does being “god like” have to do with anything?
Let me guess. You are one of those “tolerant” liberals who sees all who disagree with their narrow minded views as being part of one big stereotype, and hence I must be a fundamentalist Christan. Not surprising. You have a lot of company.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:20 pm
Ooops, Peter, I apologize, my remarks are directed to Mike @2:58 pm. I need to read my posts more carefully.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:21 pm
Peter, honestly, I could care less what you think is crazy and what is not. Especially coming from a gal who can’t even put a coherent sentence together.
1: Everything on Earth is under control of God. If you look in Genesis it tells us that everything is for man’s use.
2: Sounds like you have a problem with meat. Unless you are a vegetarian, you can’t really say that killing animals is bad. But still, go and try to tell some Georgia hunters that they can’t kill deer. Let us all know how that turns out.
3: George Bush? Oh, now I get it. This all comes down to the liberal playbook of Bush is evil we are holy.
Look little girl, George Bush didn’t get anyone killed. People who signed up for the military knew EXACTLY what they were getting in to.
Bottom line: Sounds like you were either beaten up as a kid or you blame all of your problems on someone else.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:22 pm
Hey retiredds……my comment was pointed towards Mike condescending remark !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:22 pm
Peter @ 3:20, did you take those photos from your imaginary helicopter?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:23 pm
retiredds –
Split all of the hairs you want, but you are calling Gore a prophet and comparing him to prophets in the Bible.
And yes, the only people who would liken Gore to a biblical prophet is a liberal. I know that many liberals have trouble admitting that they are liberal, preferring “progressive” or some such twaddle, but yes you seem to be a liberal.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:27 pm
Peter –
Do you think your sneering comments towards Axelfraud were not “condescending”?
Your hypocrisy is a laughable as your stereotype infested world view.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:28 pm
Ok David…….this is really the problem with the Right…… Unaware of religion and ideology outside’s one little world….
A Taoist, or Buddhist would say we are all energy within the Universe, and man is only a small part of the energy field. Not understanding ” Our ” place in this world is really a man made issue !
I know you are hoping all will work out, but the way men pollute without care, is a clear indication, we are part of the problem.
I guess you believe in 2012, or God coming to earth and wiping us out to clean up the place then ?
Because parts of this world is a dump created by men, and for no other reason……..just like animals are extinct because of man.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:28 pm
Peter, now I remember you. You’re that girl who was on here a few months ago crying about other people being mean to you. HA!
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:30 pm
Peter, Buddism is self-indulgence. Buddism is full of pot smoking idiots.
2012? Eh, unless you can find 2012 in the Bible, which you won’t, I don’t believe it.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:31 pm
Peter, at least my “little world” is real. Unlike your imaginary unicorn land of fuzzy bears and dope.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:32 pm
Republican’s
Like to name call when intelligence fails them…….. They go to church, forget what Sunday was all about, and become nasty hateful folks.
Even George Bush screwed over the Religious Right.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:33 pm
HA HA HA……… HA HA HA ….David……..” Buddism is self-indulgence. Buddism is full of pot smoking idiots. ”
HA HA HA……… HA HA HA……… The Dali Lama is really quite a man compared to anyone you know !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:34 pm
Peter, you are a pathetic little girl.
retiredds
November 24th, 2009
3:35 pm
Mike, what is so important about labeling one a liberal or a conservative? On some issues I lean toward being liberal and other issues one would call me conservative. I don’t place any weight on being one or the other. I have found that labeling stifles debate versus enhancing it.
Peter's step mom
November 24th, 2009
3:36 pm
PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETER, GET BACK IN THIS TRAILER THIS INSTANT YOUNG LADY! I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU! NO TURTLE SOUP FOR YOU TONIGHT!
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:36 pm
Poor little David……. Sticks and stones…Little Man !
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
3:37 pm
NaR,
And yet, when you take that tone, the people who are open to reason discount your posts.
Personally, I am not at all convinced by the AGW issue, because there are common-sense issues that they fail to address, like long-term climatological issues, that go back millions of years. I can see the time series of the published data, and the swings of the climate, some of which were immensely much greater than anything the AGW people are talking about.
You can read about the Medieval Warm Period, in Caesar’s Commentaries, when wine grapes were grown in the Thames Valley. You can read about the colonization of Greenland, and the death of the colony of Vikings there as temperatures fell. You can read about the Miocene period, when all the world was much warmer than it is now for a very long period of time indeed, and our hairy ancestors evolved as they were forcefully stressed by evolutionary pressures. You can read about periodic glaciations, and the inter-stadials…and none of this had anything to do with industrial pollution.
Further, the science fails the smell test, because of the emotional reactions of the people involved. And, if you are honest with yourself, you can see that most of the emotion is on the AGW side. In every debate to which I have listened, including one on NPR, the audience starts out on the AGW side, the AGW side says everybody hates us and don’t want us to succeed, the anti side presents arguments, and the AGW side says again everybody hates us and don’t want us to succeed. Then they poll the audience, and the audience has swung to the anti side. I suspect that the reason is because the only people presenting verifiable scientific fact are on the anti side, and the pro side is all about emotion. But then I’ve only heard a few of those, the anti side stopped participating at some point, however much the pro side asks for debate.
But I am willing to be convinced. Who wouldn’t want to be the brave scientist that saves the situation, like the folks in “It came from beneath the sea,” and “Them,” and all those other 1950’s films which came out at the time Boomer’s opinions on science and business and the military were being molded? All that is necessary for me to buy in is for the science to become open and verifiable and subject to a vigorous debate. And for the financial positions of the AGW folks to be made public, so that we can see whose ox is being gored when the anti-AGW folks debate…
That is why this issue of ‘ClimateGate’ is rapidly becoming very important, because those of us who are not climatologists, and who do not have access to the data nor the tools to be able to process the data, need to be able to trust those who do. And as of right now, I don’t. And my trust level is rapidly receding, the more I read, the more reticent the people at the CRU remain, and the longer this goes without full disclosure.
Well, that’s a heck of a lot more than I started to say when I started this post.
But the Pro-AGW folks are not doing themselves any favors when they irritate the other side. Just something to think about.
JP
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:38 pm
Been to Grand Cayman Island ? Great turtle soup….why ?
Because they have a Turtle farm there…… Do you Get out much ?
Little Man !
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:38 pm
Peter writes: Sticks and stones…Little Man !
So, you like little men and sticks? Huh, you are one weird chick.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:39 pm
Peter: First, Antarctic ice hasn’t been diminishing…see here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=40042 and here: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
Second, I never said I did know what was happening, only that there are too many holes in what the warmists say and too many developments that weren’t predicted by the models. Hence, the need for more debate, more examination, etc.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:41 pm
Kyle, they’ve proclaimed themselves experts, or actually others have because I don’t think I’ve ever heard a real scientist claim expertise just curiuosity, because they’ve done the work necessary. You?
Less politics? Your position is nothing but politics and if you don’t think that the the tone of your article sreams ‘they’re hiding the fact that it’s all a scam’ then you’re being intellectually dishonest. Sorry, you’re not quite a good enough writer to mask intent. Maybe next year.
So these ‘facts’ that most are posting, do these include the Biblical references, swipes at Al Gore and Hollywood, and communist/socialist (intetresting mix) conspiracy theories? You don’t want facts, you want controversy to undermine the facts.
As for continuing the conversation, well, you have all the power there, don’t you big guy. Not that you’d ’stifle dissent’……..
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:41 pm
Peter and Axelfraud: Let’s get back to the topic.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:42 pm
Peter –
“Like to name call when intelligence fails them…….. They go to church, forget what Sunday was all about, and become nasty hateful folks.”
And you think that mindless stereotyping of all who do not share your narrow minded views is anything other than “nasty and hateful”.
Your hypocrisy is laughable and seems to be endless.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:42 pm
Here you go………..little man………
Changes in Arctic sea ice coverage from 1978 to 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/oct/14/arctic-sea-ice-coverage
Changes in Arctic sea ice coverage from 1978 to 2008 developed by Ignatius Rigor at the University of Washington, Seattle Applied Physics Lab. Pulses depict the annual expansion and contraction of the sea ice from winter to summer. Red dots represent the buoys that measure the ice.
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:43 pm
Peter –
And your point is?
Copying and pasting random old articles is not making an argument.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:43 pm
Thanks Kyle……. gosh why do folks like to go that way ?
mike
November 24th, 2009
3:45 pm
A) Peter said that conservatives “like to name call when intelligence fails them……”
B) Peter said “Here you go………..little man………”
C) Peter is a hypocrite.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
3:48 pm
NeverTrust: I haven’t stifled debate on here, only cases of personal insult-slinging between readers. And I won’t stifle it now. I just wanted to explain why I don’t see the point in continuing to answer comments which don’t move the conversation forward.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:49 pm
Hey Kyle….What is happening to the Glaciers at our own Glacier National Park ?
Are the getting bigger or smaller ?
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:50 pm
Peter @ 3:42, either you are completely retarded or you can’t read. I already stated that the Earth changes. Ice caps melt then they come back. It’s been that way since the beginning. I stated that NO scientist can agree on WHAT causes it. You stupidly posted rhetoric about things that have NOTHING to do with this topic. Like shooting wolves and eating monkey brains.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
David……… shooting wolves and eating monkey brains are nor different than pollution by man….in fact no different than religion……..all man made.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
‘…too many developments that weren’t predicted by the models’
Ever ran a model of this or any complexity? Basically, it’s trying to recreate the entire planet including atmosphere in mathematical terms. And you want no holes?! Again, you’re showing you, excuse the term, I don’t mean it as a pejorative, ignorance. I have this ongoing theme with my two young sons; the danger is not wwhat you don’t know but what you don’t know that you don’t know.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:52 pm
Peter @ 3:49, can you show any proof that the glacier problems are man made?
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:55 pm
Peter, ??????????????? The mind boggles. Seriously, you have some whacked out view of global warming.
Bottom line: You are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of your league on this topic. Go try your hand over on Tuckers blog. She loves her some crazies like you.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
3:58 pm
David….what do you know ?
You don’t have any argument what so ever about this……and saying God controls all is NOT an argument at all, merely an opinion.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
3:58 pm
mike, Peter is not really a hypocrite. Peter is more like the kid in school who gets beat up all the time for playing with GI Joe dolls while he should be doing Algebra.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:00 pm
Peter, God is not an argument for this topic? Huh, because for the last 2000 years He has been.
Bottom line: You can’t prove global warming is man made. Al Gore is a loser who doesn’t have any friends. Sort of like you.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
4:01 pm
NeverTrust: I’d be less concerned about the models failing to predict things — you know, like a decade-long hiatus from global warming itself — if we weren’t being asked to base the regulation of trillions of dollars worth of our economy on their predictions. And to do it right now (OK, next month), even as a number of responsible climate scientists, including AGW proponents, say we can’t explain these unexpected developments.
Do the scientists have more right than they have wrong? Surely they do. Do they know enough for us to act as we’re being asked to act? No.
And to get back to the original theme of this post, that is exactly why these emails are so important. They reveal a group of scientists — small, perhaps, but certainly influential — acting in bad faith. I don’t think we can in good conscience proceed along the path they’ve set out without some re-evaluation.
Peter
November 24th, 2009
4:05 pm
David…..God is your only argument and that is lame period…..calling Al Gore names because he is activist on the subject, makes you look silly.
Now have you anything really to say ?
Something that makes sense here about Global warming ?
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:09 pm
In reference to receding glaciers in Glacier National Park, they’ve been receding for a long time.
(Warning: it’ll cost you money to view this:)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C15F73B5D167A93CAAB178FD85F418385F9
Google search in archives turned up that article from April 1939; the google text reported was:
“Added to this, an eight-year survey of the dozen or so glaciers which are grinding their way down from the 13000-foot peaks of the Yosemite National Park show that the mile-long Lytell and other glaciers in the park are receding at the rate of eight to 20 feet a year.”
The folks who live there tell me it’s because of reduced rainfall. Furthermore you should be aware that rising temps are not the only thing that cause glacial fields to shrink; colder temps cause less snowfall (fewer storms, remember “too cold to snow?”).
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:11 pm
Like I said 9 months ago.
The Carter Ricochet Effect
Jimmy Carter’s presidency offers a lesson in how the purest intentions can lead to the most disastrous results.
An idealistic president takes office promising an era of American moral renewal at home and abroad. The effort includes a focus on diplomacy and peace-making, an aversion to the use of force, the selling out of old allies. The result is that within a couple of years the U.S. is more suspected, detested and enfeebled than ever.
No, we’re not talking about Barack Obama. But since the current administration took office offering roughly the same prescriptions as Jimmy Carter did, it’s worth recalling how that worked out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553442202536968.html
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
4:12 pm
Again, what you don’t know…
Models are never the sole basis for any decision. They’re useful tools to test a hypothesis but there’s much more to it than that. That’s where the ‘expert’ part comes in.
How are we being asked to act? And, when would you like us to do something? When atmospheric carbon gets to, say 349 ppm, when we have some extra cash, when you finish your rewrite of the seminal CO2 paper?
Wow, acting in bad faith. Pot, meet kettle.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:15 pm
Interesting, my comments are being deleted but Peters go untouched. That sounded weird.
Kyle Wingfield
November 24th, 2009
4:18 pm
Axelfraud: I’ve been taking down both of your comments that only pertain to yourselves. And I’ll keep doing that until y’all stop attacking each other and resume some semblance of debate.
David Axelfraud
November 24th, 2009
4:21 pm
Kyle, remember, it was Peter’s comment that started this whole argument.
saywhat?
November 24th, 2009
4:32 pm
If you have done any in depth research into who the most rabid AGW deniers are (e.g. Lord Monckton, mentioned by Kyle, is a prime example), you will find that their “research” and activities are by and large funded by the fossil fuel industry. They sold their souls to the highest bidder. Their opinions carry as much weight with me as those of the scientists paid by the tobacco industry to tell us that smoking didn’t cause cancer or lung disease. (Do all you righties still believe that too?) Why would anybody want to share data with somebody like that, whose sole reason for wanting the data was to twist it and willfully misrepresent what it signified?
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:36 pm
saywhat, Since you have done the research, could you please cite your sources? Thanks.
Mike Fairbanks
November 24th, 2009
4:45 pm
Global warming isn’t a big deal. People always get upset talking about the earth warming.
You do know, I’m sure, that it’s been colder and warmer than it is now throughout history. It doesn’t stay static. It will continue warming….or not.
We can adapt. So what if the ocean levels rise. I live in Atlanta and it would just put me a little bit closer to the beach.
Besides, when Al Gore weighs a proper weight and lives in an 1000 foot off-the-grid house I’ll pay a bit of attention to the guy. He buys carbon credits, all in the hope that some guy on the other side of the world eats one bowl of rice a day and uses a bike.
JackPoynter
November 24th, 2009
4:50 pm
If I were Al Gore, I’d be raving angry about this ClimateGate business, it’s about to cost him a ton of money.
The folks just a few miles west of me got eight inches of snow the other day, I’ve been looking forward to a little weather more in the Georgia range up here.
But that’s one of the reasons that I have to discount AGW, nothing ever goes my way.
NeverTrustARepublican
November 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
Kyle, read Mike Fairbank’s post. That’s your core, the attitude and level of comprehension fostered by the constant barrage of articles like the one you wrote today. Consider your task well done and my username ever more appropriate.
Hatin' on the stupid
November 24th, 2009
5:11 pm
Yawn, manipulating scientific data for political purposes….so Bush era. Next topic, please.
matt
November 24th, 2009
9:16 pm
MMMMMMM………….well done data.
Carbonicus
November 24th, 2009
9:37 pm
Kick Me – You can’t be serious! As Kyle explains, many of the people involved in this scandal ARE the IPCC scientists (Jones, Mann, Trenberth and many others).
You show your lack of intelligence on this subject when you blindly refer to the IPCC as “the experts” and refer to a supposed “consensus” of 10,000 scientists. The actual number of scientists who wrote the Summary for Policymakes in the last (4th) IPCC assessment report was approx. 52. That’s not a typo, you can check it for yourself.
On top of this, scores of scientists have dropped out of the IPCC because of the lack of scientific rigour in the IPCC process.
You are obviously not aware of the Oregon Petition, which has over 30,000 signatures of scientists who disagree with the supposed “consensus”, including over 9,000 with PhD’.
The IPCC and these scientists are a fraud, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
As you are about to see for yourself, a number of us are now going to sue NASA, NOAA, NCDC, NCAR, and any and every other govt. scientific agency who ever took a penny of taxpayer money to force them to disclose their files. When this information comes to the fore, this goose is cooked.
Before you blindly accept the findings of the IPCC and its supposed consensus, next time do the research yourself so you don’t look so foolish in a public forum.
Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the coming “global warming” science meltdown.
Carbonicus
November 24th, 2009
9:43 pm
SayWhat? – You show your lack of personal research into this topic. It is true that some NGO and other skeptics have, in fact, been funded by major oils. But the amount of funding received by scientists promoting anthropogenic “global warming” Thermageddon is orders of magnitude greater than the funding received by “deniers” from fossil fuel corporations.
Either you know this is true but are merely a hypocrite, or you didn’t know this until now. Don’t take my word for it, go chase the information yourself.
JackPoynter
November 25th, 2009
5:26 am
Senator Inhofe will begin a Congressional Inquiry into the matter.
Parliament has begun an inquiry.
Doctor Phil Jones has been asked to resign.
The last time I looked, the major networks were not carrying the story.
Google reports 1700+ hits on this story worldwide.
I think that brings it up to date.
dewstarpath
November 25th, 2009
7:00 am
- Never Trust a Republican –
- You could do a lot worse than Reader’s Digest.
It’s a great magazine.
More on those climate emails | Kyle Wingfield
November 25th, 2009
10:14 am
[...] get up to speed if you haven’t been following this story closely, here’s my post on it yesterday. Short version: A large batch of data from one of the world’s leading climate [...]
Bowfin
November 25th, 2009
9:31 pm
I’m not into politics, I just want the climate back to normal…say 11,000 years ago, when Northern Indiana was under a hundred feet of ice, and we could hike to Siberia from Alaska, using the Bering foothills:-)
Dawilla
November 25th, 2009
11:26 pm
This story should be front page headlines on the AJC but except for this blog post there is not a peep from them. The hacker released emails and documents expose one of the biggest scams in world history. The university has already acknowledged that the emails and documents are legitimate and there are now calls from government officials in the UK for the firing (and possible prosecution) of the “scientists” involved in this scam. That’s it AJC, come Monday I am going to cancel my subscription. Your lack of true journalism and professionalism has left a very bad taste in my mouth and I am finally through with you.
dewstarpath
November 27th, 2009
2:28 pm
- Killing deer out of season would probably be
controversial, even to a hunter.
A Glance at Climategate… | Political News | Annuit Coeptis
November 28th, 2009
10:51 am
[...] From the Atlanta Journal Constitution we have an article that begins by discussing the contradictory evidence of the last decade and [...]
John A. Jauregui
November 29th, 2009
9:49 pm
Stop bitching, take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. START donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near to the truth?
Mike
December 1st, 2009
8:33 am
To Icarus: Is there not a big difference between hacking into the private account of a public personality (i.e. Ms. Palin) and getting information, paid for with public taxes, which should have been available under the F.O.I.?
Climategate: Ethical Hacking « 0DayNews.org
December 9th, 2009
8:06 pm
[...] On the Climategate emails [...]
More inconvenient truth for Al Gore | Kyle Wingfield
December 15th, 2009
9:24 am
[...] go, this one transcends the good science vs. bad science debate that heated up with the release of the East Anglia emails. Only in the realm of government can a person make such a wildly exaggerated claim and expect to [...]
PeterDeprogram
January 13th, 2010
7:39 pm
“Everything on earth is under control of god.” As far as I’m concerned that is about intellectual level of global warming contrarians. Many of you don’t even accept the theory of evolution, yet unfortunately it seems that we need to get you on board an in order to get anything done before it’s too late. And you need to get your lies straight: are you still actually denying the reality of siginificant climate change, or, like Sarah Palin, are you admitting it but insisting that we still don’t know why it’s happening, and therefore can’t do anything about it? At this point the global warming debate is between science and superstition.
Food Recipes
May 9th, 2010
7:49 am
This is very good site. Food Recipes
I like it very much.