"Climategate"

[consortium11]

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which some have dubbed "Climategate",[1][2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. An unknown individual stole[4] and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents.[5][6][7] The university confirmed that a "criminal breach" of their security systems took place,[4] and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised."[8] Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.[5] Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that the leaked e-mails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine.[9]

Critics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion[10] by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.[11] Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.[12] Jones called charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous",[4] and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.[13]

On November 24, the University of East Anglia announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter,[9] and, one week later, announced that Phil Jones would stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation.[14] The review will be headed up by Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

This has finally really started to hit the news in the UK (for the first few weeks it was sold as a mere hacking story) and reaction has been as expected... the sceptics are calling this the deathknell of the man-made cimate change theory showing that "consensus" scientists have distorted data, locked reports and perverted the term "peer reviewed" all for a political purpose... the supporters argue it's a storm in a teacup and the seemingly damning quotes are out of context.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with one of the leading sceptics as to the real import of the story. We all know that the vast majority of funded scientific research is going to find the results those funding it want. It's basic logic and human nature. The sceptics are paid to dispute man made climate change, those who support it often rely on the vast sums invested into preventing climate change for their jobs. It's why it's so damn hard to find legitimate information on say passive smoking... both sides throw such much money at it it clouds the issue (and that includes seemingly respectale orgs like the WHO and American Lung Association). It's a sad fact of life that often in science money talks.

No, for me the real story here is that it seems almost certain from the emails that this group tried to block prima facie legitimate FOI requests. Now this is worrying. I don't care how biased your own studies are... if others can't replicate them then they won't have a leg to stand on. Likewise regardless how biased your mindset is; if people can replicate the results (and the nature of the study itself isn't in doubt) then you're probably quite close to the truth. Preventing that from occurring prevents the scientific method from working. I'd also note that of the emails I've seen it is those referring to this area which are most damning and hardest to explain away as merely "out of context."

Anyone else following this? Thoughts? How do you think it will effect the upcoming conference... with the Saudi minister in attendance already saying it will sink any plans for a treaty.

[Vekseid]

Bunch of idiots with no clue about what the word 'climate' means celebrating the discovery of a decade-old email from a guy who wanted to make a graph prettier. Not falsify the data, just present it in a fashion that hid the temporary decline - not ethical, but does not invalidate honest data. They want to see the world drown under their vacuous stupidity and/or sociopathic greed.

There is a global temperature rise, though there are periods of decline, the current one coinciding with a rather extreme solar minimum. I wonder what these people will be saying fifteen years from now, during a solar maximum. Besides claim "that's not what I meant when I said global warming was a hoax!"

[Vekseid]

And - gah, yes, there's plenty to go after regarding CRU's attitude, here. Genuine, honestly-collected data is valuable and if gathered for a public purpose should generally be shared openly. There's nothing to  be gained from hiding most things.

That, however, is an issue with the CRU and/or East Anglia University, not climate change in general.

[Zeitgeist]

I am neither a scientist nor an expert on the science of climatology.

That said, I've always been skeptical about the shift of terminology; global warming to climate change. The skeptic in me suspects there is something of an effort to shift the language from warming to change so as to fit the theory into more possibilities and occurrences.

More simply, if you call it 'global warming' and temperatures decline, the theory loses credibility. If you call it 'climate change', whenever the weather changes, the theory is advanced.

I do believe this shift of language is intentional, and meant for the public to more easily accept and digest, rather than based on a more exact terminology.

I'm deeply suspicious of the intentions of people such as Al Gore and adherents to the theory. I fear it has more to do with controlling populations, money and land than about an impending global disaster.

[Vekseid]

Global warming is a fact rather than a theory - global average temperatures are increasing over the long term. No one disputes this, though some people dispute it is caused by humans.

Global warming is one major cause of climate change, which is a far more nuanced phenomenon, but ultimately is what we are worried about. Warmer weather in the midwest causes colder weather in Europe, for example, and vise-versa, due to the Rocky Mountains. In October, the midwest was a lot colder than average, while the rest of the world a lot warmer.

Ultimately, the solution will probably come in the form of carbon recapture for various useful purposes. Algaculture, farmers reinjecting cooled exhaust into their soil, and so on.

[Jude]

This is just another example of uneducated people pouring over complicated academic documents, not bothering to verse themselves in the literature, or looking at the situation with any impartiality.  Of over a 1000 emails and 3000 documents stolen, they managed to find 3 problems which are very explainable if you give the scientists the benefit of doubt.  It's incredible they didn't find more, and everything they do have they're taking out of context or assuming a nefarious plan in their analysis in order to come to their conclusion (just as they're accusing the scientists of fixing the hypothesis and then making the research fit it).

Just like in the mammogram controversy, Science is yet again getting covered from an incredibly ignorant point of view.

And yes, you can put together a scientific research team and have them come up with a study which shows something that's untrue.  You can make an entire institute on putting together crappy experiments that using poor operational definitions to purposely misconstrue observable implications in order to give your side of the argument "evidence."

That's why it's important to not pay attention to any one institute or group of research.  Believe it or not these people are not the only scientists who study global warming and came to the same conclusion.  They're 3-4 scientists out of the entire mainstream scientific process and yet the community as a whole has still reached the same conclusion independently.

[Vekseid]

As I understand it, there are scientific problems with the CRU's data gathering and software - consortium's link is rather relevant, but the hoopla over these e-mails is completely drowning it out. Rather than focus on real, substantive problems, we have people who couldn't solve a logic problem if their life depended on it trying to influence scientific research based on gut feelings.

Eventually, someone's life is going to depend on it. It doesn't take much to be a scientist, for crying out loud, but consortium's link presents it in a nice, simple, graphical form: Test what you think you know, be prepared to be wrong.

That's it. That's all it takes.

[consortium11]

As I understand it, there are scientific problems with the CRU's data gathering and software - consortium's link is rather relevant, but the hoopla over these e-mails is completely drowning it out. Rather than focus on real, substantive problems, we have people who couldn't solve a logic problem if their life depended on it trying to influence scientific research based on gut feelings.

Eventually, someone's life is going to depend on it. It doesn't take much to be a scientist, for crying out loud, but consortium's link presents it in a nice, simple, graphical form: Test what you think you know, be prepared to be wrong.

That's it. That's all it takes.

I should point out that the article I link to is written by one of the major climate change sceptics... informative as it is (and while I agree with him on this point) it's far from unbiased... and it could well be that his "legitimate" FOI request was in reality just part of a harassment type campaign to frustrate the scientists in question. A lot of the facts are murky at this stage... and may never be cleared up.

[consortium11]

That's why it's important to not pay attention to any one institute or group of research.  Believe it or not these people are not the only scientists who study global warming and came to the same conclusion.  They're 3-4 scientists out of the entire mainstream scientific process and yet the community as a whole has still reached the same conclusion independently.

Sorry for the double post.

The deeper you look into this specific incident the worse it seems on the face of it. Now, that could well be simply because the only people really writing in detail about climategate are the sceptics so there's been no real rebutals and the arguement (on the internet at least) is heavily weighted to their side, but it's starting to look slightly more damning then first thought.

These aren't just any 3-4 scientists... these 3-4 scientists are all leading authors of the IPCC reports, which puts them at the very top of the man-made climate change hierarchy. I've seen figures ranging from 43-54 as to the numer of leading authors in total... but regardless this throws real doubt as to at least the ethical qualities of just under 10% of the leading climate scientists on that "side" of the debate. That's assuming of course that nothing comes out of the NASA FOI request which has been blocked for two years (seemingly following the same pattern) and that this pattern of behaviour isn't found amongst the whole group. Secondly, this group in particular supply one of the four sets of data the IPCC reports are ased on... and I've found unsourced claims that this data set is the most important one. Accept that if you will, regardless it looks like one of, if not, the most important set of figures regarding climate change has been at the very least massaged.

And another very worrying note... the suggestion that the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific study, had been corrupted.

From the emails:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Some are calling this a smoking gun... that this shows that the sceptics are being forced out of peer-reviewed literature. That if a journal does publish them then this group (that rememer is 3 or 4 of the leading IPCC authors) will attempt to blackall them, reducing peer-review to a group of friends and colleagues rubber stamping each others work along with multiple pats on the back.

I'm not so sure it's that strong, but it looks pretty damning. Then again, creationists/ID theoriests could likely raise the same arguement and the counter is pretty simple; if a journal pulishes an article which is clearly wrong then it no longer deserves to be refered to as peer-reviewed.

Whatever your thoughts, I think we all have to accept it's a pretty worrying idea...

For anyone interested http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a pretty indepth blog on the issue. It's entirely sceptic and thus heavily biased, but it also goes into the most detail I've seen about the nitty-gritty of the data... the codes used, the chance that it's likely a leak etc etc. Good website if nothing else to see exactly what the fuss on the sceptic side is about.

[goalt]

The only real scandal here is the part with the hacking.

Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

[consortium11]

The only real scandal here is the part with the hacking.

At this point it looks more likely it was a leak as opposed to an external hack.

Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

Too right...

[Jude]

The deeper you look into this specific incident the worse it seems on the face of it. Now, that could well be simply because the only people really writing in detail about climategate are the sceptics so there's been no real rebutals and the arguement (on the internet at least) is heavily weighted to their side, but it's starting to look slightly more damning then first thought.

There are rebuttals out there, they're just harder to find and no where near as strong as the skeptic's arguments about things, because they're from a more rational, scientific point of view.  I follow several science podcasts which talked about the incident and went into things.  They had some criticisms to give on how the scientists were behaving so it wasn't all positive feedback, but that more or less went into how they were behaving "catty" and "petty" within the emails and acting against the spirit of openness science more than any empirical failures.

These aren't just any 3-4 scientists... these 3-4 scientists are all leading authors of the IPCC reports, which puts them at the very top of the man-made climate change hierarchy. I've seen figures ranging from 43-54 as to the numer of leading authors in total... but regardless this throws real doubt as to at least the ethical qualities of just under 10% of the leading climate scientists on that "side" of the debate. That's assuming of course that nothing comes out of the NASA FOI request which has been blocked for two years (seemingly following the same pattern) and that this pattern of behaviour isn't found amongst the whole group. Secondly, this group in particular supply one of the four sets of data the IPCC reports are ased on... and I've found unsourced claims that this data set is the most important one. Accept that if you will, regardless it looks like one of, if not, the most important set of figures regarding climate change has been at the very least massaged.

No scientist is published, accredited, and has their work accepted without it being peer-reviewed though.  That's the thing about science, the reputation of the scientist doesn't matter as long as their data and experiments are prevented clearly enough that they can be replicated and tested by others.  Which is essentially the peer review process.  So it really doesn't matter if a couple scientist's reputation is called into question, unless you have no faith in the scientific establishment as a whole, which seems to be the case with skeptics and a large chunk of society.  You know, until they turn on a computer, or one of their relatives are dying, then they're perfectly happy to utilize the fruits of science while rejecting the parts they don't want to believe for reasons of ideology or personal utility.  Each portion of information, practical or otherwise, that science collects comes from the same process.

And another very worrying note... the suggestion that the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific study, had been corrupted.

You're only getting this information from a biased resource which is really misunderstanding the situation.

Some are calling this a smoking gun... that this shows that the sceptics are being forced out of peer-reviewed literature. That if a journal does publish them then this group (that rememer is 3 or 4 of the leading IPCC authors) will attempt to blackall them, reducing peer-review to a group of friends and colleagues rubber stamping each others work along with multiple pats on the back.

All the emails are implying, is that they feel that the Climate Review magazine, or whatever it was, was no longer impartial.  They were going to stop publishing there and rely on other journals because they felt they weren't getting a fair shake there, and that the editorial board, etc. was ideologically motivated.  If you do a bit of research, you'll find out that in the aftermath of this experience the editorial board and a lot of people with that specific group have resigned over this, now that it's out there that prominent scientists feel they're not fair.  If anything some of the peer-review processes in particular journals have been tainted against science, in favor of anti-science, political-driven ideology.

I'm not so sure it's that strong, but it looks pretty damning. Then again, creationists/ID theoriests could likely raise the same arguement and the counter is pretty simple; if a journal pulishes an article which is clearly wrong then it no longer deserves to be refered to as peer-reviewed.

Whatever your thoughts, I think we all have to accept it's a pretty worrying idea...

For anyone interested http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a pretty indepth blog on the issue. It's entirely sceptic and thus heavily biased, but it also goes into the most detail I've seen about the nitty-gritty of the data... the codes used, the chance that it's likely a leak etc etc. Good website if nothing else to see exactly what the fuss on the sceptic side is about.

I'm not against being skeptical about global warming.  I loved Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on it.  It brought up some legitimate questions and interesting points of view.  It certainly shook my certainty on the subject.  I'm skeptical of everything, especially emerging scientific consensus.  The problem is, you have to be skeptical based on statistics and empirical evidence, you have to go about questioning on the basis of facts, and counter science with science.

Releasing out-of-context bits and pieces of emails from over 4000 dollars that were taken illegally, then claiming they're the death knoll in global warming just isn't intellectually honest.  If this incidence bothers you, that's good.  It should.  Everyone should look over this evidence and feel a little unnerved by it.  But to assume anything concrete and to take what the bloggers and skeptics are saying uncritically is unfair.  You have to do well-rounded research and come to a conclusion of your own on the matter.

Few people are aware of the sort of nonsense that conservative ideologues have perpetuated on this subject, the efforts to mislead and confuse, and how long we've been collecting evidence on this for.  This is a good place to start:

The American Denial of Global Warming

EDIT:  The "Climate Review" journal I was referencing was called Climate Research, and the specific facts from Wikipedia are these:

In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Michael Mann wrote:

    "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[32]

Michael Mann said to the Wall Street Journal that he didn't feel there was anything wrong in saying "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."[32]

Mann was not alone in expressing concern about the peer review process of the journal. Half of the journal's editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned because they felt that publication of the paper in question represented a breakdown in the peer-review process. The publisher had refused to allow von Storch to publish an editorial on the topic, but later the president of the journal's parent company accepted that the paper's major findings could not "be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. [Climate Research] should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

[goalt]

Really, 'skeptic' is a misnomer when it comes to climate change. The word has implications, at least to the general public, of rational disagreement.

[Oniya]

Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

Especially since most of the people applying the suffix weren't around for the original.

[consortium11]

I don't see how it is a misnomer.  I've done research into articles and papers on this subject multiple times, and every time I do, the science supporting global warming seems less and less certain or predominant.

"Skeptic" has been changed an adapted in the same way "Liberal" has in US politics; it's a vague term that covers everything but essentially is used in a pejoritive way to mean "bad person" and has nothing to do with the root of the term.

These days "skeptics" range from flat out climate change deniers, those who accept it exists but think that humans have no impact on it, those who accepts it exist but think that humans have a limited impact on it, those who accept it exists and that humans have a great impact on it but think that cutting caron emission by 90% isn't a price worth paying and those who accept it exists, think humans have a great impact on it, think we should be doing something serious about it but don't like the way it's being used as a stick to beat developed nations... or the way the environmental movement has been highjacked by the left in general.

Let's also remember who got the two biggest rounds of applause at Copenhagen... Hugo Chavez and Robert mugabe... oth of whom talked about Western imperealism and the evils of capitalism rather than climate change itself...

[Mnemaxa]

What I especially like is the fact that these personal emails are considered to be scientific documents.  They're not.  They're personal emails, from one person to another.  Conveniently ignored fact.

[RubySlippers]

I just want PROOF I mean real PROOF that such drastic measures as proposed such as Carbon Caps and moving to green technology when not clearly necessary since we have coal and nuclear power. True in several decades we need to power vehicles with something other than oil.

But since we can't use normal scientific method to test any of this we have to not just jump into expensive solutions that may or not be necessary.

[Hemingway]

It's more or less pointless to ask for "real proof" when there's already consensus among the majority of the world's scientists. When you set standards that high, no amount of evidence is going to change anything.

I've more or less given up, personally. When people treat climate change like politics and religion, there's not much you can do. When people think that one year colder than the previous trumps a century of steadily increasing temperatures, it really does feel hopeless. But the real tragedy, in my view, is that even when people begin to die because arable land is submerged under the rising sea, or turned into a barren wasteland by an insignificant increase in temperature, the more fanatical opponents will still not think it's our fault.

[Jude]

I just want PROOF I mean real PROOF that such drastic measures as proposed such as Carbon Caps and moving to green technology when not clearly necessary since we have coal and nuclear power. True in several decades we need to power vehicles with something other than oil.

But since we can't use normal scientific method to test any of this we have to not just jump into expensive solutions that may or not be necessary.

I assume you haven't researched the literature.  How else do you think scientists come up with these recommendations if not by using the scientific method?  I think your complaint is about the degree of certainty.  The farther removed from a replicable, simple singular experiment a scientific study is, the less probably it is.

I can understand not being convinced by individual studies, but when you look at the body of literature and information on the subject, it's impossible not to realize just how vast the consensus is.  It was emerging in the early 90s, now it's fairly well established.

Doubt has been cast on the movement for political reasons by partisans associated with Reagan Conservatism in the United States, and this is an indisputable fact.  The very same "scientists" who attempted to fudge the science on Reagan's Nuclear Defense System are largely responsible for the origin of the "the science is still unsure" bullshit.  Then there's the "link between cigarettes and cancer" deniers who are also involved.  Here's a "neat" example:

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

A large portion of the skeptics out there have been fed ideas by ideologically motivated anti-science interests.  It's another example of the crusade against science in recent years exemplified by the creationists, the anti-vaccination movement, the young earth people, alternative medicine, so on and so forth.

Most of that is relatively harmless and will eventually fix itself.  The difference is that when it comes to global warming we've only got one earth to ruin and if we have to wait til clear signs that science is as authoritative on this subject as it is on others to emerge, a lot of people will die.  No one knows if we'll even be able to survive as a species if we let things get that bad.

A skeptic is someone who believes in rational discourse and the scientific method.  They have express criticism for things that they see as uncertain by using those tools, but they don't go off course and abandon rationality in the name of faith or ideology.  Global Warming Skeptics do exist, but the vast majority of the global warming skeptic community is actually comprised of people who are really anti-global warming evangelists.

EDIT for an important addition

So far, I've yet to see any independent reviewer of all of the emails conclude that any wrong-doing occurred actually occurred.  The AP read every single leaked email, including several that were critical of them, and still concluded that nothing scientifically fraudulent occurred.

[RubySlippers]

There are alternatives I suggest read Super Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner. They have talked to scientists and they found floatation devices that would cost maybe one billion dollars that could cool the ocean water enough around the US to weaken hurricanes. An idea for a space hose to pump harmless ,and its reversable, gasses to reproduce the effects of a volcanic eruption that could reverse global warming and other measures.

All far cheaper than the costs of measures planned and we could try these first.

[Jude]

There are alternatives I suggest read Super Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner. They have talked to scientists and they found floatation devices that would cost maybe one billion dollars that could cool the ocean water enough around the US to weaken hurricanes. An idea for a space hose to pump harmless ,and its reversable, gasses to reproduce the effects of a volcanic eruption that could reverse global warming and other measures.

All far cheaper than the costs of measures planned and we could try these first.

That book is written by a journalist and an economist; neither of them have any background in climate science or engineering.  They're talking about the plausibility of ideas without the proper education to make these judgments about how practical or possible they are.  Many of the ideas suggested in the book have already been discredited or are otherwise presented in a misleading fashion.

That's not to say I'm not all for discussing our other options.  I personally think that people who are against Nuclear Power yet claim to also support the efforts against Global Warming are fundamentally not serious about the issue.  The dangers of Nuclear Power are nothing we can't handle with the proper safety precautions (as evidenced by three-mile island).  It's just an of the left ignoring science to spin their extremist environmentalist agenda.

Both political ideologies are guilty of ignoring the facts when it's convenient.

[Schwarzepard]

Speaking of science, ideology and ignoring facts...

Parts 1 through 5 are particularly enlightening (starting a bit down the page, not the first video) for those who wish to challenge preconceived notions.

http://www.climategate.com/lord-monckton-al-gore-debate-me

[Revolverman]

I'm more worried about CFCs, and acid rain chemicals then carbon myself, but yet you never hear about the far more toxic chemicals we pump into the atmosphere.

[RubySlippers]

That book is written by a journalist and an economist; neither of them have any background in climate science or engineering.  They're talking about the plausibility of ideas without the proper education to make these judgments about how practical or possible they are.  Many of the ideas suggested in the book have already been discredited or are otherwise presented in a misleading fashion.

That's not to say I'm not all for discussing our other options.  I personally think that people who are against Nuclear Power yet claim to also support the efforts against Global Warming are fundamentally not serious about the issue.  The dangers of Nuclear Power are nothing we can't handle with the proper safety precautions (as evidenced by three-mile island).  It's just an of the left ignoring science to spin their extremist environmentalist agenda.

Both political ideologies are guilty of ignoring the facts when it's convenient.

They admit they are not scientists they are economists. Global Warming is an economic issue and they pointed out why not look at cheaper options that are reverseable first, then see if harsher actions are needed. That would cost more. I'm just concerned the cost to fight global warming using the most extreme options on the list first is not the way to go.

[Jude]

Speaking of science, ideology and ignoring facts...

Parts 1 through 5 are particularly enlightening (starting a bit down the page, not the first video) for those who wish to challenge preconceived notions.

http://www.climategate.com/lord-monckton-al-gore-debate-me

The rhetoric at the start of that video about Al Gore being scared is absolutely ridiculous.  He sounds like a high school jock making chicken noises at someone.  Al Gore isn't the issue either.  Global Warming isn't about one person.  Attacking the messenger and not the message is a classic fallacy.  It's only relevant to call into question his credibility if the data he's spreading the message he's created is of his own creation; Al Gore is not important.  He's gotten too much attention and focus in the Global Warming debate and arguably has overstated the case several times.  I think it would be better for the country if he shut up about it and went away.  His self-serving semi-autobiographical nonsense in an inconvenient truth greatly weakened the film in my opinion.

But anyway, Lord whatever goes on to say misleading things about the MWP, claim that 99% of scientific pursuits are funded by governments (I have to wonder what definition of science he's using to get that figure), make outrageous claims that politicians/governments are what's backing global warming (when he is/was a politician), and he has clear conservative bias if you just glance at his history.  He has no scientific background whatsoever.  Here's a little segment from his wiki page to help you see how credulous he is.

He warned that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world"

They admit they are not scientists they are economists. Global Warming is an economic issue and they pointed out why not look at cheaper options that are reverseable first, then see if harsher actions are needed. That would cost more. I'm just concerned the cost to fight global warming using the most extreme options on the list first is not the way to go.

You have to understand the problem and the solutions proposed in order to be able to make a judgment; that takes scientific knowledge.  They got the science wrong on a lot of the points according to a wide variety of sources, so clearly their training as an economist and a journalist affected the quality of their work.

Having an economist on board is important, but your response is essentially saying you don't need an architect to design a building you intend to see constructed, just some financial math whizzes to deal with the budgeting and management to direct the flow.

I'm more worried about CFCs, and acid rain chemicals then carbon myself, but yet you never hear about the far more toxic chemicals we pump into the atmosphere.

Those might be a valid problem as well, but that doesn't diminish carbon as a serious issue.  That's a separate unrelated point to the discussion entirely.

[Revolverman]

Those might be a valid problem as well, but that doesn't diminish carbon as a serious issue.

I beleve it does. those chemicals are far more directly toxic, and damaging to plant and animal life then Carbon dioxide, its all swept under the table because carbon is the environmental flavor of the month.

[Jude]

Flavor of the month?  They've been studying the effects of CO2 on Climate for a good 30 years if not longer.  This is nothing new.  It's just the most serious threat that we're facing from environmental pollution according to scientists.  Since you're claiming that's not the case, lets see some evidence to back up this opinion of yours.

[Schwarzepard]

Speaking of scientists...

Here are some scientists debunking the human caused global warming in a Finnish documentary.

Part 1climategate on finnish television 1/3
Part 2climategate on finnish television 2/3
Part 3climategate on finnish television 3/3

Speaking of attacking messengers, you just said you didn't like the "rhetoric" instead of providing any argument about how his statements were wrong.  Anyone who's interested should watch part 2, starting at 9:00 then continue to part 3, especially at 1:15.

Part 2  starting at 9:00...
Climate-Gate. Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton - Part 2 of 5

Part 3 on to 1:15...
Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton part 3 of 5

I'm interested in your argument about how his conclusions are wrong.

[Jude]

I don't have the scientific background or knowledge to do a point by point rebuttal of everything he says.  I hinted at the factual inaccuracies I was aware of, but here's a short list of the errors in logic he makes.

- He compares the climate of the planet to the internal thermodynamics of the human body; there's no way that's a valid comparison.
- He claims that 99% of funding for science is public.  That's absolutely preposterous and it's a key component of his claims.
- He states that there are "two dozen politically motivated scientists."  Two dozen scientists don't have enough influence to railroad all of mainstream science.  He also refuses to name anyone.  How convenient.
- My discussion of his rhetoric was not intended to insult him, but discredit him as a source.  He's clearly shown himself to be politically motivated (has a history of being a conservative, etc.).  Why should anyone trust what he says?  He didn't cite any organization or agency, only dropped a few names left and right.

And he did it on a talk show that was clearly supportive of his agenda.  The host was not at all skeptical towards his claims.  They both basically took a moment to talk about how you become a social pariah if you talk down climate change, which is ridiculous because we have an entire political movement in the U.S. that does it.  He likes to make it sound like a global conspiracy which is absolutely ridiculous.

As for the Finnish documentary, it basically recaps stuff that was already discussed earlier in the thread.

[RubySlippers]

On the topic Climategate forme is a non-issue. But what is the odds of us stopping and reversing Global Warming in my lifetime using draconian methods, unlikely. The US cannot survive economically unless we protect ourselves with China and India not on board. And for me population growth is a far greater threat than anything else as I see it. The population if going up massively in poor nations and that will cause for more harm than Global Warming. Diseases will increase far faster and many deadly diseases are becoming resistant to the drugs that can fight them including a real threat Malaria.

I just think that money could be spent better culling the herd of humanity with birth control, economic aid for the poor like microloans so women can be important and that does reduce larger families and researching drugs that can help people. We should work on green tech and when its cost effective to use over what we have now we will use it, in fifty years a century. Then Global Warming gases will decrease.

[Schwarzepard]

I don't have the scientific background or knowledge to do a point by point rebuttal of everything he says.  I hinted at the factual inaccuracies I was aware of, but here's a short list of the errors in logic he makes.

- He compares the climate of the planet to the internal thermodynamics of the human body; there's no way that's a valid comparison.
- He claims that 99% of funding for science is public.  That's absolutely preposterous and it's a key component of his claims.
- He states that there are "two dozen politically motivated scientists."  Two dozen scientists don't have enough influence to railroad all of mainstream science.  He also refuses to name anyone.  How convenient.
- My discussion of his rhetoric was not intended to insult him, but discredit him as a source.  He's clearly shown himself to be politically motivated (has a history of being a conservative, etc.).  Why should anyone trust what he says?  He didn't cite any organization or agency, only dropped a few names left and right.

And he did it on a talk show that was clearly supportive of his agenda.  The host was not at all skeptical towards his claims.  They both basically took a moment to talk about how you become a social pariah if you talk down climate change, which is ridiculous because we have an entire political movement in the U.S. that does it.  He likes to make it sound like a global conspiracy which is absolutely ridiculous.

As for the Finnish documentary, it basically recaps stuff that was already discussed earlier in the thread.

So the satellite measuring the Earth's emission of heat back into space doesn't count, because he used the analogy of the human body emitting heat to help explain the concept?

Please provide support for your claim that his statement about research funding is preposterous.

The politically motivated scientists didn't railroad all of mainstream science.  They falsified data, they abused the peer review process to suppress dissenting scientific studies, and they did a host of other things intended to promote human caused global warming as a crisis while admitting among themselves that the evidence didn't show any human caused global warming.  They knew the planet wasn't warming, so they falsified their reports to support their political convictions.  They've been named repeatedly in many media sources.

The Finnish documentary supports the above paragraph, regardless of whether or not it has been already covered in this thread.

Your attempt to discredit him instead of disprove his points was entirely clear, especially after you mentioned the shooting of messengers previously.

Human caused global warming is a fraud, but you want to believe in it, so go ahead.  Have a good time paying taxes to solve a crisis that doesn't exist.

[Jude]

So the satellite measuring the Earth's emission of heat back into space doesn't count, because he used the analogy of the human body emitting heat to help explain the concept?

He wasn't just using an analogy; he was drawing a direct comparison between the two phenomenon as if they had something in common.  The thermodynamics of a living organism and an entire planet are not similar enough that you can draw comparisons between them in order to make points.  That's not legitimate.

Please provide support for your claim that his statement about research funding is preposterous.

I don't have to provide statistics to prove he's wrong, the person making the claim is the one who the burden of proof is on, which I suppose in this case is you.  He is not a reliable source to cite clearly, as he's shown that he's biased on the subject by political affiliations and other loaded statements.  He provided absolutely no evidence at all to back it up, started delving into conspiracy theories afterward, and it seems highly unlikely, why should I believe him?  Do you have any evidence or are you just taking his point of view and parroting it back?  Did you not read some of the insane thing he's said, namely the communist conspiracy one related to Obama?

The politically motivated scientists didn't railroad all of mainstream science.  They falsified data, they abused the peer review process to suppress dissenting scientific studies, and they did a host of other things intended to promote human caused global warming as a crisis while admitting among themselves that the evidence didn't show any human caused global warming.  They knew the planet wasn't warming, so they falsified their reports to support their political convictions.  They've been named repeatedly in many media sources.

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the planet Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]

So you're basically saying all of those scientific institutions and academies of science are wrong?  Even if the group that was hacked that provided data for the IPCC did falsify data (and the evidence is no where near as clear as you're making it sound, it's still unclear if anything bad has happened, the jury is still out) many of the other academies and institutions ran independent studies and came up with the same conclusion.  You make it sound as if all of modern science hinges on a few people's beliefs.

There's a reason people who have attempted scientific opposition to global warming have failed.  It's because their conclusions were less supported.  That's how science works; people who have better papers win out, it's a very simple marketplace of ideas.  Anyone can public a scientific paper and only their methodology can be scrutinized, not the conclusions.  The reason why Global Warming is believed to be a well-supported fact is because the majority of scientific institutions have agreed with the research done establishing it and disagreed with the skeptical research; it's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of evidence.  Granted, if you only look at biased evidence as it seems you have and never familiarize yourself with the original information and rebuttals it's easy to become a hardline denier (and there is a difference between a denier and a skeptic).

The Finnish documentary supports the above paragraph, regardless of whether or not it has been already covered in this thread.

The Finnish documentary only covers climategate, which only involves one institution.  If you want to discredit global warming, there's a lot more studies and groups to slander.

Your attempt to discredit him instead of disprove his points was entirely clear, especially after you mentioned the shooting of messengers previously.

There's a difference between attacking the messenger and discrediting someone who is making statements as a reliable witness.  Attacking the messenger is equating a person with a message they're delivering, i.e. making Al Gore into Global Warming, and taking potshots at him in order to attack Global Warming indirectly.  The problem with this is, Al Gore is merely transmitting information that other people have established.  You can stop believing what Al Gore says and just go directly to his resources; you don't have to trust Al Gore to believe his claims.

Discrediting this guy, however, is far more valid because he doesn't cite his resources in most instances.  He applies a good deal of subjective judgment and brushes over the information he does cite without getting into the detail that's necessary to really assess whether he's being fully honest or not.  There's no reason to trust him as a reliable witness and plenty of reasons not to.

I don't trust Al Gore either, listening to any one person, especially people who are ideologically or politically motivated is ridiculous.  I think Global Warming has validity because the majority of scientists support it.  If you don't support it knowing that, then you believe in a conspiracy or lack faith in science, either of which is fine, but at least admit you're anti-intellectual if that's the case so that the argument can shift to something more honest.

Human caused global warming is a fraud, but you want to believe in it, so go ahead.  Have a good time paying taxes to solve a crisis that doesn't exist.

I don't know that man-made global warming is real.  In science nothing is ever known.  They make gambles based on careful research and put stock in ideas based on this.  Global Warming is not a fact; it's a scientific fact, and a scientific fact is not absolute truth.  Science deals in statistical probabilities, you never "know" anything perfectly, it's just a matter of likelihood.

But in your final message there you exposed a few holes in your way of thinking:

1)  You're treating this as a matter of certainty and fact, which means you're not thinking scientifically or even being skeptical.  It's skeptical to ask for explanations, justifications, and try and poke holes through things rationally.  Words like fraud are not skeptical or reasonable, but are extremist statements.

2)  The tax comment exposes a political ideology.

So whatever, we're going to argue in circles here and it won't matter, because it seems like you've taken an evangelical position on the matter.

[Arix]

I beleve it does. those chemicals are far more directly toxic, and damaging to plant and animal life then Carbon dioxide, its all swept under the table because carbon is the environmental flavor of the month.

No offense but I don't think  you understand the greenhouse effect of the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  I do not feel like explaining the greenhouse effect unless I am forced to but it would be in your best interest to go look it up.  As for what increased CO2 does, well it does only very harmful thing that is never talked about.  It causes the ocean to acidify.  The ocean absorbs CO2 at a rate that is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  As in if there is more CO2 up there, more CO2 will be absorbed by the ocean.  H20 and CO2 react with each other to form Carbonic Acid, H2CO3.  An influx in this acid causes the ocean to acidify.  This acidification makes it so that marine life that create calcium based shells, as in lobsters, shrimp, clams etc, cannot form their shells.  This will cause them to be easier prey and my even just kill them outright.  In other words they will die out.  I think that is very damaging to animal life.  Don't you agree?

[Hayley]

... many of the other academies and institutions ran independent studies and came up with the same conclusion.  You make it sound as if all of modern science hinges on a few people's beliefs.
<snip>
That's how science works; people who have better papers win out, it's a very simple marketplace of ideas.  Anyone can public a scientific paper and only their methodology can be scrutinized, not the conclusions. 

I'm afraid I have to disagree, in part..  Lets imagine I'm a maths genius, right?  Full on Beautiful Mind.  But I didn't go to uni and get a doctorate for whatever reason.  So Im sat doing some sums one day and suddenly, holy crap, i realise x=y (or whatever. The more astute of you may have spotted I'm not a maths genius).  I write a paper and send it off to Maths Monthly.  Now, there is very little chance that this paper from a nobody is going to be sent out for peer review.

While Peer Review may mean that the best papers are rigourously checked, the fact remains that not all papers are peer reviewed.  There is a political screening process before that that some papers fail, based on name (not in a racist way I mean in the kudos you have within the field), where your qualification is earned, and so forth.

I'm not claiming global warming skeptics are genii.  I dont understand the science and dont really have the inclination to learn it.  What I am claiming is that if people are being refused the peer review system before they reach it then no claims whatsoever can be made about the validity of their argument.  And if scientists want to work, they need funding.  To get funding they need journal articles.  IF there is a bias in the pre-peer review process against global warming sceptics then any comments about the peer review are redundant.

EDIT: Jude, hope you don't think Im quote mining by snipping and ellipsis-ing.  'Twas just to save space.

[Jude]

I'm afraid I have to disagree, in part..  Lets imagine I'm a maths genius, right?  Full on Beautiful Mind.  But I didn't go to uni and get a doctorate for whatever reason.  So Im sat doing some sums one day and suddenly, holy crap, i realise x=y (or whatever. The more astute of you may have spotted I'm not a maths genius).  I write a paper and send it off to Maths Monthly.  Now, there is very little chance that this paper from a nobody is going to be sent out for peer review.

There are actually stories of mathematicians who make such breakthroughs that are told by teachers in college.  It all happened a long time ago however, the chances of someone who is untrained and a layman developing something new or useful now are abysmal.  As science and mathematics have become more sophisticated, it's become harder to make new discoveries.  There are still people who are relatively untrained who manage to do.  In fact several years ago a schoolgirl got a study published in a peer review journal against therapeutic touch.  Then there's the Millennium Math Contest, which offers a 1,000,000 dollars to anyone who can prove a couple of unresolved theorems/ideas in mathematics.

It may be harder for a layman who isn't trained or educated to get their theory/theorem/idea published, but it's not impossible if they go through the right channels.  The best way is to find someone who has the credentials and get them to page through your work.

While Peer Review may mean that the best papers are rigourously checked, the fact remains that not all papers are peer reviewed.  There is a political screening process before that that some papers fail, based on name (not in a racist way I mean in the kudos you have within the field), where your qualification is earned, and so forth.

If you throw your paper out there haphazardly you might have trouble getting people to review it, that's true.  But if you shop it around enough and work hard, get an individual scientist at a local university, etc. to sponsor it essentially, then it it will get the attention it deserves.  Can't expect scientists to examine every paper that someone wants them to do, they simply don't have the time.  Which is why it's important to work hard if you have something worth their attention.  I've seen too many examples of people who have been published without the proper training and education to really believe it's impossible though.

I'm not claiming global warming skeptics are genii.  I dont understand the science and dont really have the inclination to learn it.  What I am claiming is that if people are being refused the peer review system before they reach it then no claims whatsoever can be made about the validity of their argument.  And if scientists want to work, they need funding.  To get funding they need journal articles.  IF there is a bias in the pre-peer review process against global warming sceptics then any comments about the peer review are redundant.

As for whether or not the peer review process has been tainted, that's an extremely narrow reading of the situation.  Climate Review is one peer reviewed journal, and the point of the scientists in climate gate more or less was that Climate Review was no longer objective.  They saw the publication of a few articles which they personally felt were lacking in scientific merit and skeptical of global warming that gave them cause to doubt the objectivity of Climate Review.  All of their discussion after that was aimed at minimizing the effects Climate Review could have on their research's fair publication, not because they wanted to hide the truth from a journal they believed would poke holes in their ideas, but because they believed Climate Review was tainted.  They have solid, factual reasons to believe this as well.  Do I think they were right?  I don't know, but as mentioned earlier in the thread some people in Climate Review resigned over it.

What bothers me about this is that people aren't putting themselves into the place of the scientists and trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Yes the emails look ugly, yes some of what they say is very petty, and yes a lot of this looks bad on the surface from an uneducated layman's point of view.  But "hide the decline" for example referred to a statistical technique they employed which was perfectly valid in order to get a better regression for their graphs.  A lot of the reason they came off as so petty is because of how global warming has been treated by skeptics.

A lot of them like to say Global Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by men; that's not skepticism, there's too much certainty in it.  Skepticism is doubt, not thinking that you know something you couldn't possible know.  The polarization of "skeptics" has put many scientists into a position where they feel cornered and behave sort of catty as a result.  They have every reason to feel beleaguered however, look at climate gate itself, a significant portion of their emails were stolen and published throughout the world yet no one's decrying the breach of their privacy.

EDIT: Jude, hope you don't think Im quote mining by snipping and ellipsis-ing.  'Twas just to save space.

Nah, I don't mind at all, it's cool.

EDIT:  Sidenote, it's easier to break into the field of Climate Change denial than anywhere else.  There's a bunch of private funding for anyone who tries to publish papers skeptical of climate change from oil companies, free-market think tanks, etc.  For more information:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[BCdan]

I think the lobbying, propaganda and political tricks the heavily polluting oil and coal industries have performed far outshines a few emails amongst a very few scientists. 

[RubySlippers]

All I want is proof, beyond a reasonable dought and then some, that spending all this money and placing burdens on US industry and citizens that will result will stop and reduce global warming.

What if this is a climate shift they have happened naturally before many times it may not even matter then and might hurt a response to adapt to that?

Can you or the scientific community say with 80% or more assurity what is being proposed will work?

[consortium11]

I think the lobbying, propaganda and political tricks the heavily polluting oil and coal industries have performed far outshines a few emails amongst a very few scientists.

The oil, coal and steel industries donate and sponsor virtually all the scientists involved in Climategate. A decent number of the climategate emails are about the scientists getting funding from the likes of Shell and BP. BP especially is in a position where a halt in caron trading would do serious damage to the company... and the same goes for nearlly all the major oil/steel/coal groups.

The head of the IPCC has a (very) lucrative job with TATA Steel and was a non-executive director of an Indian Oil company and currently his foundation (the one related to TATA Steel) owns 47% of a joint venture with the oil company.

Quietly, the industries that are the "bad guys" have been working their way into the Climate Change camp... Shell sponsors the environmental pages in the Guardian for example as well as their eco-conferences.

[Jude]

Not only can I not say with 80% certainty that what is being proposed will work, I can't even say with 80% certainty that Global Warming is as much of a threat as it is described in popular media.  Thanks to poor journalism, a few loudmouthed idiots (of the Al Gore variety), and the extremist environmentalist movement it's incredibly difficult to separate sensationalist reporting from what the truth is.  The same can be said of almost all scientific coverage today.

I listen to Science podcasts, watch University lectures on the subject, and generally pay attention to science news and I'm confused as hell on the issue.  From my research I'm quite certain that the data shows a trend of warming and that for 30 years or more there's been significant research proving a link between Greenhouses Gases and increase in temperature.  I don't even know if I'm willing to say outright that Global Warming is entirely man made.  I think solar variation might also play a role, but I think it's difficult to argue that mankind's industrial ambitions aren't having an impact on our climate, and that cutting back on CO2 emissions wouldn't mitigate the negative effects we're experiencing.

The bottom line is, there's a great deal of misinformation out there on both sides of the aisle.  Global Warming Skeptics aren't actually skeptics on the whole, they're extremists who have selected their point of view based on the consequences of the ideas they choose to believe and not on the plausibility of said ideas.  Skepticism is questioning and asking for evidence, I'm a skeptic, I read up on the subject and wonder if things are being overblown and try my best to understand what's going on.  Anyone who calls Global Warming a fraud and a hoax perpetrated on mankind, etc. has literally zero credibility.  They're just trying to oversimplify a complicated issue to save themselves cognitive dissonance.

The bottom line is that the evidence for Global Warming needs to be laid out for the public in a reasonable fashion.  The closest we got to that was an Inconvenient Truth, which was laden with Al Gore's personal bullshit story no one wanted to hear about.  He's partly responsible for the politicization of this issue by lumping himself in with it.  He's basically cement shoes attached to the feet of any policy initiative to do something about global warming.

The case for Cap and Trade hasn't been laid out very effectively.  People essentially believe or disbelieve climate change right now on the whole based on what they've been told by people they trust.  Very few people in the public have actually done the research to formulate an opinion, and even fewer people than that have gotten that information from a reliable source, but this is really just the underlying symptom of the real problem:  Americans are largely uninformed and uneducated when it comes to science.

Global Warming is simply one example.  There are widespread misunderstandings about vaccination, evolution, western medicine, and many other scientific topics.  Science education is poor, I think that's part of the problem, but there's more to it than that.  Just imagine the depth of arrogance it takes to proudly proclaim Global Warming is a fraud like many people do, when the researchers working on analyzing and understanding it on the other side of the aisle are literally devoting their lives to gaining knowledge about the matter.

It's their job.  I wouldn't walk into a small business owner's office and start questioning how they run their company without looking over their balance sheets, so why do so many people feel it's OK to read a few links on the web, listen to a talk radio host, or watch a video on youtube, then take from that that scientists are liars?

Things're pretty messed up.  I for one don't think we, as a country, respect the right qualities anymore.  There's too much populist rage, we the people rhetoric, and obsession with traditional values.  Somewhere along the line we forgot that ingenuity and intellectualism were the basis of our country.  We were founded on ideas, not ideologies.

[BCdan]

The oil, coal and steel industries donate and sponsor virtually all the scientists involved in Climategate. A decent number of the climategate emails are about the scientists getting funding from the likes of Shell and BP. BP especially is in a position where a halt in caron trading would do serious damage to the company... and the same goes for nearlly all the major oil/steel/coal groups.

The head of the IPCC has a (very) lucrative job with TATA Steel and was a non-executive director of an Indian Oil company and currently his foundation (the one related to TATA Steel) owns 47% of a joint venture with the oil company.

Quietly, the industries that are the "bad guys" have been working their way into the Climate Change camp... Shell sponsors the environmental pages in the Guardian for example as well as their eco-conferences.

Then why the smear campaign?  Most of these emails were taken wildly out of context.  The scientists weren't making false information, just trying to make people realize the ramifications of the information. 

I just see the oil and coal industries as being the main agitators simply because they have the most to gain by discrediting global warming science. 

[consortium11]

Then why the smear campaign?  Most of these emails were taken wildly out of context.  The scientists weren't making false information, just trying to make people realize the ramifications of the information. 

I just see the oil and coal industries as being the main agitators simply because they have the most to gain by discrediting global warming science.

The "smear" campaign hasn't exactly been well-funded... there's a reason it's mainly taken place on blogs and online. If they were receiving real funding from big oil you'd expect it to be much more cohesive and well organised. In addition Oil companies have een diversifying their interest for decades... never more so then now. They fund nearly all of the "green energy" initiatives and they also run several of the major carbon trading desks. Paradoxicly a move away from oil  isn't that bad for nearly all the major companies... in the long run it may even benifit them to get away from something as volatile as oil. If these oil companies were the agitators then they wouldn't fund the scientiests who ended up implicated in climategate... scientists who for a long time have een on the forefront of arguing in support of man-made climate change.

Also, it's worth noting that some of the infomation from the leaked files does indicate that the scientists played pretty fast and loose with the data... or at least the way they interpret and present it. This isn't unprecedented... the infamous hockey stick graph that often seems to appear was discredited... and discredited comprehensively enough that Hans von Storch also dismisses it... von Storch was mentioned earlier in the thread as the editor who resigned from a peer-reviewed journal after it pulished sceptic pieces that weren't up to the standards that should be required. The hockey stick was done by Michael Mann btw... one of the central figures in the emails.

As for the climategate data itself, I'll link you to the best infomation I can;

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/

And I assure you, that's not a sceptics blog there... if you look at the other posts the vast majority are about programming and the like. On the other hand, the next two are from an complete and utter sceptics blog... take of them what you will;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#more-13939

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/#more-13783

As has been said before and will be said again the scientists implicated in Climategate aren't the entire man-made climate change movement... but they are some of the most influential (all of them have major roles in the IPCC) and they have also been the loudest in calling from drastic action and giving doom-laden headlines. What it requires is to perhaps look back at what has been put forward with a more critical eye. The previously mentioned von Storch perhaps put it best when he compared the current situation to hype about the destruction of forrests in Germany... which when it turned out to not be as dramatic as predicted caused a massive loss in confidence in all scientists even vaguely attatched to that area of research. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater... but neither should we simply let it sit there...

[Jude]

The "smear" campaign hasn't exactly been well-funded... there's a reason it's mainly taken place on blogs and online. If they were receiving real funding from big oil you'd expect it to be much more cohesive and well organised. In addition Oil companies have een diversifying their interest for decades... never more so then now. They fund nearly all of the "green energy" initiatives and they also run several of the major carbon trading desks. Paradoxicly a move away from oil  isn't that bad for nearly all the major companies... in the long run it may even benifit them to get away from something as volatile as oil. If these oil companies were the agitators then they wouldn't fund the scientiests who ended up implicated in climategate... scientists who for a long time have een on the forefront of arguing in support of man-made climate change.

Anti-global warming groups have offered upwards of 10,000 dollars to scientists as an incentive to get them to publish papers skeptical of global warming.  It really hasn't taken place online and in blogs; that's only one portion of what's going on.  The same institute that fought against the science that was opposed to Reagan's Missile Defense debacle has been combating global warming as well.  The oil companies have also been doing their thing, they're just rather clever about it.  They try and influence policy via lobbying and commercials which don't directly oppose global warming, but instead offer tempting ideas that encourage people not to buy into it for personal gain.

Also, it's worth noting that some of the infomation from the leaked files does indicate that the scientists played pretty fast and loose with the data... or at least the way they interpret and present it. This isn't unprecedented... the infamous hockey stick graph that often seems to appear was discredited... and discredited comprehensively enough that Hans von Storch also dismisses it... von Storch was mentioned earlier in the thread as the editor who resigned from a peer-reviewed journal after it pulished sceptic pieces that weren't up to the standards that should be required. The hockey stick was done by Michael Mann btw... one of the central figures in the emails.

As for the climategate data itself, I'll link you to the best infomation I can;

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/

When reading the first link I spent the entire time wondering how he got the source code, and then how he knew they actually used it.  Plus there's the question of understanding why the program was written using the interpolation features involved.  It's entirely possible that there's a perfectly valid reason why that was done.  Pulling out part of a complicated procedure for scrutiny the way he did wasn't fair.  The assessment was completely out of context.

If you find something that you don't understand in the middle of a scientific work the proper response is to ask questions, not to declare falsification of data or throw around terms insulting the integrity of the group you're discussing because you don't grasp what's going on.

And I assure you, that's not a sceptics blog there... if you look at the other posts the vast majority are about programming and the like. On the other hand, the next two are from an complete and utter sceptics blog... take of them what you will;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#more-13939

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/#more-13783

I'm tired of reading articles that other people put forth on this thread when no one seems to take the time to read the links I give, so I'm not even going to bother scanning anything else until the people I'm arguing with time and time again show me the same courtesy I'm showing them.

As has been said before and will be said again the scientists implicated in Climategate aren't the entire man-made climate change movement... but they are some of the most influential (all of them have major roles in the IPCC) and they have also been the loudest in calling from drastic action and giving doom-laden headlines. What it requires is to perhaps look back at what has been put forward with a more critical eye. The previously mentioned von Storch perhaps put it best when he compared the current situation to hype about the destruction of forrests in Germany... which when it turned out to not be as dramatic as predicted caused a massive loss in confidence in all scientists even vaguely attatched to that area of research. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater... but neither should we simply let it sit there...

We do need to put forth effort to verify the data.  The biggest thing the climategate scientists are guilty of is not following the spirit of science.  Science is about openness, transparency, clear communication of ideas, and reproducibility.  The scientists in climategate did not adhere to those principles.

[consortium11]

Anti-global warming groups have offered upwards of 10,000 dollars to scientists as an incentive to get them to publish papers skeptical of global warming.  It really hasn't taken place online and in blogs; that's only one portion of what's going on.  The same institute that fought against the science that was opposed to Reagan's Missile Defense debacle has been combating global warming as well.  The oil companies have also been doing their thing, they're just rather clever about it.  They try and influence policy via lobbying and commercials which don't directly oppose global warming, but instead offer tempting ideas that encourage people not to buy into it for personal gain.

So on one hand we have independant groups offering $10,000 a paper and from your own wiki link, Exxon giving $2.9m a year (in total) to sceptic and denial groups.

On the other hand we have Phil Jones alone recieving $22m since 1990 in funding, we have the fact that CRU itself was set up with the help of and still receives funding from British Petroleum and Shell, the leaked emails show they were soliciting further funds (including from Exxon). As mentioned before Shell also sponsors Eco Conferences and the Guardian's environment page (where one of the loudest spoken pro-man made gloal warming journalists writes). And that's not mentioned the large amounts of tax-payer supported funds they get: CRU for example gets the majority of its funding from the EU. The market itself is forcing oil companies away from their classic source of income and into "alternative" fields. It may be a little quicker than some of them like, but in the end they benefit from alternative energy.

And then there's the media aspect of it. While in the US I'm sure FOX News is pretty sceptical, I can't think of another major news source that does the same. The bbc has the odd interview and article but on the whole its coverage is has been so biased that the trust has ordered an internal view into their entire environmental coverage... and let's remember that it took weeks for the mainstream media to report the leaked files and emails as anything other than a hacking story.

When reading the first link I spent the entire time wondering how he got the source code

Em... Climategate. It wasn't just a set of emails that got leaked...

...and then how he knew they actually used it.  Plus there's the question of understanding why the program was written using the interpolation features involved.  It's entirely possible that there's a perfectly valid reason why that was done.  Pulling out part of a complicated procedure for scrutiny the way he did wasn't fair.  The assessment was completely out of context.

He posted the full program code in the second link; is there something there indicating that the part he highlighted is out of context?

And agreed that there's no evidence that it was used. Without the raw climate data we can't verify it. Unfortunately CRU has consistantly blocked and dodged questions on this and requests for that data... to the extent the emails imply people should delete what they could and try to work round FOI requests. The NASA numers have also been near impossile to come by... and at this stage despite the negative reaction neither of those two institutions look likely to release the figures... which is odd... especially looking at the litany of excuses CRU has put forward (from damaging international relations to the fact they misplaced the raw data)

If you find something that you don't understand in the middle of a scientific work the proper response is to ask questions, not to declare falsification of data or throw around terms insulting the integrity of the group you're discussing because you don't grasp what's going on.

Which sounds good... until the fact that the exact same type of program was used to create the Hockey Stick graph... the one thats been pretty much proven false. When a set of code from a group that works closely with the perpertraitor of that seems to give the same results using the same methodoligy, it's not a massive leap to think they may be attempting the same thing.

I'm tired of reading articles that other people put forth on this thread when no one seems to take the time to read the links I give, so I'm not even going to bother scanning anything else until the people I'm arguing with time and time again show me the same courtesy I'm showing them.

Perhaps we've crossed wires here... from what I've seen you've posted a couple of wiki links (on denial and its funding and von Storch resigning) and a youtue video... all of which I've read/watched.

We do need to put forth effort to verify the data.  The biggest thing the climategate scientists are guilty of is not following the spirit of science.  Science is about openness, transparency, clear communication of ideas, and reproducibility.  The scientists in climategate did not adhere to those principles.

Agreed. Until the data is verified the 2007 IPCC report (which is based heavily upon it) can't e looked at as a legitimate document... which leaves the 2000 report as probably the most reliale. The 2000 report includes the mwp/little ice age (the contentious areas in both the code and the emails) which in turn means the climate today is neither unprecedented or even particularly high. There also have to be serious questions aout the IPCC as a whole considering that these scientists took leading roles in the 2007 report (as well as the conflicts of interest of the Chairman of the IPCC) as well as the peer review process... as well as the previously mentioned attempts to "blacklist" a journal that may or may not be legitimate other emails make clear the scientists attempted to freeze out von Storch irrespective of whether the science was correct or not... which clearly isn't.

[MercyfulFate]

I'm no climatologist and I'll admit that, but Climate change/global warming has always irked me. I don't doubt that it may be happening, what makes me skeptical is people's reaction to it. It seems too...almost insane. Now I understand if it were happening the way it's described that action is necessary, and perhaps this explains it. However the way opponents criticize it as being a "quasi-religious" movement is absolutely true.

It also seems there are plenty of skeptical scientists, problem is they're laughed at and even barred from their field if they don't agree, which isn't very scientific. There are debates on a lot of scientific issues for and against things without these types of reactions, why for this?

Also the plans many are proposing to "fix" global warming are downright wrong to me. Cap and trade is a joke, it will not stop companies from polluting. In fact those with connections will be able to pollute all they want with no repercussions. Add to this that it will cause energy prices to become more unstable by creating another speculative market for Wall Street to mess with, and do we want that?

Also global warming "reparations", basically giving countries that didn't pollute (not even true anyway) tons and tons of money to build green infrastructure. All of this will raise the costs to American, and European and other families by hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Other proposed thoughts have been controlling people's travel, basically giving you X number of miles you can fly or drive and then you can't after that. Does that seem right? Even population control has been discussed, while these last two may not happen it's disturbing enough that it's even on the table whatsoever.

[RubySlippers]

I don't see an issue here Eventually fossil fuels will become harder to use cost effectively oil the major one is overits peak and reserves are harder to get at so down theroad we will have to go to other options. This likely 50 to 100 years from now. Then Global Warming will be dealt with by natural market forces gasoline costing say $20 a gallon vs. an electric car most will choose the latter I think at that point.

So dangerous emissions will drop naturally at that point reducing the threat over the next several hundred years.

Why should the US worry we can adapt with hydroponnics, low water irrigation and other technology if we have to in the meantime.

[consortium11]

I don't see an issue here Eventually fossil fuels will become harder to use cost effectively oil the major one is overits peak and reserves are harder to get at so down theroad we will have to go to other options. This likely 50 to 100 years from now. Then Global Warming will be dealt with by natural market forces gasoline costing say $20 a gallon vs. an electric car most will choose the latter I think at that point.

So dangerous emissions will drop naturally at that point reducing the threat over the next several hundred years.

Why should the US worry we can adapt with hydroponnics, low water irrigation and other technology if we have to in the meantime.

It's perhaps worth noting that in much of Europe we're paying close to $8 a gallon for unleaded with no real impact on traditional petrol car usage. The price may hit a point where it's the "straw that broke the camals back", but that appears to be some way off (although of course the spending habits of Europe and the US are very different)

Taking the debate in a very different direction, many governments get a large amount of their income from petrol taxes... if and when people do move away from it it'll be interesting to see how and where the government picks up the shortfall.

It's also worth noting that the more extreme voices in favour of serious legislation think that 50-100 years is too long to let this lie... they think we need drastic action now or life as we know it will change forever.

[Zakharra]

 Didn't they just find a possibly huge oil field under 20' of water off the coast of Louisiana?

[consortium11]

Two more recent findings that put some serious dents in the IPCC 2007 report.

The first got the most coverage... the fact that glaciers would start disappearing from the Himalayas by 2035 has been pretty comprehensibly rebuffed and the IPCC has apologised for putting it in their report. That itself isn't bad... a group should be big enough to admit its mistakes and move on. What's worrying is after the blood and thunder about peer-review and how only peer reviewed materials mattered we find that the 2035 figure came from a 1999 New Scientist article quoting off hand remarks from an Indian scientist that 6 years later was quoted by the WWF and then put into the 2007 report. That's not peer review... its not even basic review. Wikipedia has higher editorial standards then that.

The second was less reported but far more telling. Climategate itself put some serious holes in the reliability of the HadCrut data, but now it appears the reliability of the NASA and NOAA figures may well be distorted as well. Brief telling examples are Bolivia and Canada.

[Talia]

I like this site, so I thought I would share. There is always great information and stays current.

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

[Morven]

I'm of the beliefs that anthropogenic, CO2 global warming is real and is happening, but that because dealing with that has become a political issue more than a scientific issue, facts have become very last-place in all of this.

The leading atmospheric scientists have become not just scientists, but political advocates.  This has meant, in my view, that they have decided that alarmist predictions are necessary to scare people into doing things about the issue, so they push worst-possible-case scenarios as if they were most-likely. 

Also, they are not economists and are not qualified to judge that part of things.

One of my worries is that reducing CO2 emissions will make it harder for poor people and poor nations to improve their lot.

Another is that a lot of the governmental initiatives will end up doing very little to make real changes, but will end up being either revenue generating schemes or patronage schemes, as cap and trade systems seem to end up being.  Under pressure to 'do something' against climate change, governments will indeed "do something" -- but not necessarily a smart something.

[TheLegionary]

I am impressed howf the midia changes the focus from a serious topic to an irrelevant collateral incident. However, I should not be impressed since the economic interests dictate most of what is broadcasted.

[consortium11]

Turns out the IPCC 2007 report has yet more poorly sourced works in there. Looks like a report that talked about "peer review" at every opportunity actively broke its own rules to make a point...

Here's a list of some of the WWF pieces that made it into the Nobel Prize winning "scientific" report...

[swiggy3000]

I am a Meteorology major and I feel the need to add in my two cents.

Climate change is real, the only issue is that we don't know what's going to happen. We may get warmer or we may get colder. Now that is a fact, where is issue comes in is what is causing it. There is a possibility that it is simply natural but it may also be caused by man. That's the only thing that we don't know. Reducing CO2 emissions may or may not be vital, but it would be interesting to see this. If the CO2 emissions lower and even out, would be if the increase in temperature evens out. That's the only real way to test if it is CO2 or not.

Also, even if the ice caps melt the ocean won't rise. Stick ice in a glass of water and fill it to the top. As the ice melts the glass won't overflow. It's the same basic principle.

[Oniya]

Also, even if the ice caps melt the ocean won't rise. Stick ice in a glass of water and fill it to the top. As the ice melts the glass won't overflow. It's the same basic principle.

That would be true if the ice caps were all simply floating (like the Arctic ice).  The problem is that Antarctica, Russia, Greenland and Canada have a substantial amount of ice over land.  That's the part that's going to cause the ocean to rise.

[Zeitgeist]

That would be true if the ice caps were all simply floating (like the Arctic ice).  The problem is that Antarctica, Russia, Greenland and Canada have a substantial amount of ice over land.  That's the part that's going to cause the ocean to rise.

How much melting water is picked up by the atmosphere through the natural course of air flow/humidity, what is the reverse of condensation? Perhaps our weather man can help answer? Note, that is not meant in a snarky tone. Seriously.

[Oniya]

Reverse of condensation would be evaporation.

[Zeitgeist]

Reverse of condensation would be evaporation.

Why didn't I know that? LOL. Brilliant.  :-[

[Oniya]

Brain fry - we all have them.  :-)

I can't answer how much gets picked up over the course of a day, but I suspect that evaporation and condensation are relatively balanced.

[consortium11]

Just thought I'd put out there some more examples of why sceptics argue that the establishment is firmly set against them (not that the UK Prime Minister calling them flat earthers wasn't a clue).

First we have the fact that despite being found to have clearly breached FoI laws, none of those involved will be prosecuted. The key statement is this one:

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago

Now, what's controversial about that?

Simply put because I urge everyone to read the act in question and find any mention of a time limit with regard to prosecution for breaching it. What you may find if you look into Magistrates Act are provisions that that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities' attention – not after it was committed. Yet it seems the Information Commission doesn't understand the laws that brought it into existence... and I should also point out that there has been no mention of a prosecution under the 1977 Criminal Law Act( for a conspiracy to defy the law) where there is no time limit anyway.

Can I also just add in that the Information Commission's reading of the law is patently ridiculous. 6 months from the time of the offence? By the very nature of Freedom of Information offences they'll nearly always take an age and a half to discover. If it hadn't been for the leaked emails in this case the offence would never have been discovered. If the Act was really meant to be read as having a 6 month time limit from the offence then it becomes virtually toothless... and thus worthless.

Then, we have the official independent enquiry into Climategate over here in the UK, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. From its official site:

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

No.  Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

Which sounds great right?

Until you realise it's simply not true.

First, there's the fact Dr Philip Campbell was originally on the panel. The guys an editor of Nature magazine which has long been one of the leading voices on the man-made climate change front and quite damningly posted this editorial immediately in the wake of the scandal becoming public:

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

    This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

(Of course it's worth pointing out that pretty much all the evidence suggests it was a leak as opposed to a theft...)

The final straw was when he spoke to Chinese media and stated that those implicated "behaved as researchers should" and eventually (after a large fuss was kicked up) [noembed]resigned[/noembed].

So it's fine now then? Sure even inviting Dr Campbell into the inquiry was an act of either incredible ignorance and poor judgement or a deliberate attempt to prejudice the results, but it's over now... he's gone.

But then we still have this character, Professor Geoffrey Boulton.

This man made his academic name at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (the one being investigated) and spent 18 years working there.

Works a door down from one of the team who produced the discredited Hockey Stick graphs

Now, that's not exactly a smoking gun. Sure, it looks bad but we all know people who work an office down from people we disagree with and people who wouldn't go out their way to protect people they used to work with. But there's more.

He believes the debate over climate change is over, has lectured on the dangers of climate change and how we should deal with it, believes theHimilayian glaciers will be gone by 2050, was one of those who signed up to the Met Office statement in the wake of Climategate that stated that scientists "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity" and has
spoken about doomsday visions of the effects of climate change (some by 2013).

Now, the enquiry makes very clear it's not there to debate the science... and fair enough. But how can you say people like Professor Boulton, who have staked their name and reputation on climate change being both destructive and man-made, have no conflicts of interest here when they're investigating the very body who's evidence forms the centre of that position. It seems to me to be the equivalent of having a seriously pro-war hawk like Dennis Miller be put as part of an enquiry into whether the Iraq war was legal. Ok, that's perhaps not fair... Miller is no expert on any area of international relations or law... how about someone like Douglas J. Feith?

Regardless of your stance on the science, can we all at least see that some of the politics behind this is really starting to stink? And that even if there is nothing to hide here some of the pro man-made climate change are seeming to act like there is...

[The Dark Raven]

All I can say with Alabama getting snow yesterday is "warming?  seriously?"  It's frigid here.

[Avi]

I get annoyed whenever people call it global warming when a far more accurate term is climate change.  Hotter summers, colder winters, and more-intense weather patterns all point to shifting climate.

[Jude]

Drastic winters are evidence for climate change, not against it.

But yes, what you point out is worrisome consortium.  If the science is on their side, why are they making stupid mistakes in the audit?

[consortium11]

Drastic winters are evidence for climate change, not against it.

But yes, what you point out is worrisome consortium.  If the science is on their side, why are they making stupid mistakes in the audit?

Completely agreed. The way the debate has turned ever since Climategate broke makes it look like there's something to hide. I think the main problem is that as the debate was so one sided for so long that it was the extreme voices on the man-made climate change side that got the publicity without any major opposition and often the active support of politicians and the media and they're simply not used to doing damage control or being seriously confronted... hence the amateur level mistakes that keep getting revealed. A year ago having a panel such as this wouldn't have raised an eyebrow... now it looks like a complete blunder.

The debate would benefit immensely if it was reduced to the likes of Von Storch (who I respect) who argues that man does have a noticeable effect on climate change but that that level and the dangers have been wildly overstated debating with the more reasonable sceptics. The chances of that are virtually nil. We need less sceptics talking about new world order takeovers and how all of climate science is a complete scam and less on the other side talking about the end of the world in 5 years.

The thing that most annoys me is the FoI deal. I never expected the inquiry to be more than a slap on the wrist but the FoI has far reaching consequences. It's on record now that the commision cannot prosecute any cases where the breach was more than 6 months ago... and they can't go back on that without looking corrupt. That means in every other FoI caseg they are bound by that stupid interpretation of the law... which is bad news for everyone who thinks FoI is a good thing.