ClimateGate
| Mon Nov. 30, 2009 10:15 AM PST
As near as I can tell, ClimateGate is almost entirely a tempest in a teacup. Among the stash of emails recently hacked from computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of 
East Anglia, one mentioned a "trick" for producing a nice looking graph, but the word "trick" was plainly used in the sense of "technique," not chicanery. There's nothing questionable there. Another bunch of emails shows that when scientists are communicating privately they can be as catty and nasty as anyone else. It's good gossip fodder, but nothing more. Another set of emails deals with outraged reaction to a particular journal article, but this isn't news. It was an entirely public incident when it happened a few years ago, and half the board of the journal resigned in protest. The emailers were determined not to have shoddy science published in peer-reviewed journals, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Then there are some emails about which research should and shouldn't be included in the next IPCC report, which, again, is entirely normal. Every scientist who worked on the IPCC report surely had opinions about which research was on point and which was shoddy. Finally, there's the revelation that CRU has destroyed some raw temperature data, but this happened back in the 1980s, before global warming was even on anyone's radar screen, and was obviously motivated by space considerations (they were paper records), not any kind of coverup. What's more, the raw data is still available from the original sources that provided it to CRU anyway.
Unfortunately, there are also a couple of messages that suggest an effort to destroy emails that might have been subject to a Freedom of Information request. That's a genuine problem, though it's not clear to me just how big a problem it is.
So on a substantive level, there's really very little to this. Certainly nothing that changes the actual science of climate change even a little. The earth is still warming and disaster is still highly likely if we sit around and do nothing. But George Monbiot thinks we lefties have our heads in the sand if we think that makes any difference:
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
....The crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond....When the emails hit the news on Friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. When a journalist I know finally managed to track down Phil Jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. This response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as charged".
....The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.
It's hard to argue with this. Climate change skeptics have gotten fantastic mileage out of this affair, but that's only partly because technical explanations of facially damaging statements are never very convincing to the general public. An even bigger part of the problem is that a lot of the scientists involved haven't even been providing the technical explanations, leaving that up to others who are trying to get a handle on what's going on. From a PR standpoint, it's been a disaster so far.
For years the CRU has resisted public release of its underlying datasets, partly for the understandable reason that they're tired of dealing with amateurs who comb though raw data looking for ways to pretend that warming isn't really happening, and partly because they don't have the authority to release it all. Still, science is all about transparency, and annoying or not, the data should be available. Now it probably will be, and under the worst possible circumstances. It's going to be rough sledding for the next couple of years against the fever swamp crowd, aided and abetted by the coal industry. Buckle up.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Hmm. The people who are
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 10:42 AM PST.
Hmm. The people who are feeling upset now are the people who assumed that there was actually a hope of fixing this --- the Pollyanna fools in other words. Personally I never assumed the problem was going to be fixed --- people would behave like idiots, in other words, things would get bad, and then lots of people would die. In other words this specific issue changes nothing --- things weren't going to happen fast enough before this event, and they won't happen fast enough afterwards.
Think I'm too negative? Look at the way the world has (not) dealt with overpopulation, which has been an obvious issue since at least the 1960s. For christs sake, we just had an episode of 30 Rock, that in some perverted distillation of human stupidity, includes, in the SAME EPISODE, exhortations to be more green (through, for example, unplugging your phone charger) and exhortations to have more children.
We were doomed a month ago, before Climategate, and we're just as doomed now. If it weren't climate, it would have been something else anyway --- my vote is on running out of water and arable soil --- because the lags between having children and their consequences are too long for ape brains to deal with;and because the cultural powers that drive population ("God will take care of all our extra little blessings") too strong.
Malthusianism, as always, is
Submitted by M. (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:10 AM PST.
Malthusianism, as always, is little more than a thin veneer pasted over a fundamental misanthropy. Once upon a time the language used to support it involved keeping the poor from running over the world; then, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the driving concern was keeping the brown-skinned people from doing the same. More recently, Malthusianism has linked up with environmentalism, which while being morally a far more upstanding motivation, is nevertheless still little more than a marriage of convenience meant only to conceal the underlying antipathy for the human race.
The pertinent question, though, is when do you folks ever get tired of being wrong?
Bhopal denial
Submitted by tpx on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 12:12 PM PST.
When will you folks stop leaving your car running in the garage with the door closed?
The day you Malthusians
Submitted by M. (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 12:46 PM PST.
The day you Malthusians finally take your logic where it must ultimately go and start doing so yourselves, while you're still in the car.
those darned Malthusians
Submitted by kenga (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 4:54 PM PST.
... never seemed to want to bother to count up calories produced and compare it to calories required, nor listen to anyone who had.
The human race grows or extracts sufficient resources, including food, to sustain the lives of every human on the planet. It's not distributed in any fashion resembling one intended to to so, but maybe that's what they don't really want to face up to. Those of us on top would have to live with a lot less than we're accustomed to if that were the goal. It's most certainly not, so I don't think we need to belabor that point by either pointing out that the majority of the most vulnerable humans live in areas that will be first suffering the impacts of climate change or remembering that most human depopulation projects are considered war crimes.
None of which has to do with the fact that quicker and more decisive engagement from those whose email was hacked and the climate science community generally might have kept any perceived loss of credibility from snowballing.
Unless it's rope-a-dope, but I just don't see that working, even if that's what's intended AND they can pull it off.
In re: "trick", I have analogized it as the trick I do to keep a cut piece of nylon rope from fraying - briefly touch the end to a flame and pinch it. And pretty much every blue collar profession has a bunch like that, which serve to efficiently get something done.
I would -really- like to see a similar dump from the American Petroleum Institute, where "trick" might mean "fraud".
PR
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 11:42 AM PST.
[[None of which has to do with the fact that quicker and more decisive engagement from those whose email was hacked and the climate science community generally might have kept any perceived loss of credibility from snowballing.]]
As a public-relations professional in the field of higher education, I sympathize with your point. But I also sympathize with the scientists with whom I work. They have neither time nor money for their own PR work, let alone retaining outside counsel. I've worked with some of my folks on handling media inquiries, and a couple of them have gotten fairly skilled at it, but it doesn't come naturally to most and most don't have time to give the skill the practice it needs. The best that I can hope for is that they'll come to me and let me help them craft a message that's both scientifically sound and understandable to lay people ... and that we can do it by the deadline of whoever's calling.
And that's just dealing with the local daily newspaper. Competing in the national media with Big Oil/Big Coal and their minions on this issue is practically impossible. I know. I've tried.
Malthusians
Submitted by Foutsc (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:32 PM PST.
Ann McIlhenney has your answer: Those worried about "overpopulation" should be the first to go.
There is an easy way to curb
Submitted by dmatt on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 2:08 PM PST.
There is an easy way to curb the current excess population, according to you ebeneezer, and you know what that is. How you can turn an article on global warming into a anti children rant is besides me. Grow up.
dmatt
population
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 2:29 PM PST.
have you ever read Julien Simon?
Overpopulation, global warming, Chicken Little
Submitted by Dave K (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 6:26 PM PST.
Perhaps people are not so concerned about overpopulation because they have noticed that we are not all dead now as the 60s doomsdayers predicted. Global warming is also a fantasy based on bad science. Suggested fixes will only serve to ruin our economy with no improvement to the climate.
Overpopulation vs Economy
Submitted by RealTimeHistory on Sun Dec. 6, 2009 6:36 PM PST.
Not dealing with climate change and overpopulation because to do so would hurt the world's economy is a specious argument. This conflation of the economy and climate is totally bogus, because it ignores the facts:
1) that climate change IS happening (no matter who or what or how it is caused);
2) that the past gains in food production have come at the expense of a weakening of the biodiversity that we will need to cope with the inevitable changes in climate,;
4) that serious damage and pollution of our waterways and large portions of our oceans caused by the overuse of pesticides, fertilizers, and even prescription drugs;
5) that an economy based on a perpetual growth model can not be sustained on a planet with finite resources
6) that our survival is by no means secure, merely because we have not perished already
7) that the steps to control or mitigate the effects of the human component of the increase in greenhouse gasses will actually create jobs, just not jobs in the oil & coal industries
I could go on, but the solutions to the problem are what interests me. We have the technology to drastically reduce our carbon input to the system: That we do not use these energy resources is merely a lack of political willpower.
Doomed!?!
Submitted by Capt. Edward Smith (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 9:39 PM PST.
Doomed? Maybe but not from Global Warming! I find it illuminating that Mr. Drum sees fit not to worry his reader's little heads with actually quoting directly from the CRU e-mails. Just like his Climate Change "Science" Heroes he doesn't seem to need any bothersome evidence, just toss 'em in the rubbish bin because he will interpret for you what the "facts"actually mean.
This Grand Climate Change hoax to fleece the western world is Doomed. You don't see China and India signing on to this idiocy do you? And much of the west is waking up to the fact that this is all a scam to tax them out of their shorts! If by now you cannot see that the fix is in on "Global Warming" you never will. No doubt you would have also been striding the deck of the Titanic muttering "Its only listing a bit" Have fun in your panic stricken fantasy world.
China & India
Submitted by RealTimeHistory on Sun Dec. 6, 2009 6:47 PM PST.
In fact China and India are both doing what they can to curtail their "carbon footprint". The U.S. is the only major country to be dragging it's political feet on the subject of climate change. We've been hiding behind our ridiculously rich "economy" for long enough. The adaptations to our economy (such as the widespread adoption of truly clean energy, the resurgence of local food production, and efficient mass transit) will not only generate a more robust economy, they will make our food & energy systems more robust and less susceptible to disease & ecological setbacks. Our current electrical grid system is vulnerable to sunspot activity in ways that a more distributed Wind/
Water/Solar system is not.
not to mention...
Submitted by Jet (not verified) on Fri Dec. 11, 2009 11:19 AM PST.
A distributed grid of wind/water/solar/geo/wave energy production is less vulnerable to natural disaster, invading armies, and terrorist attacks. There's also the added benefit of being able to draw power off the very first solar cell or windmill you install, as opposed to having to finish the entire plant before the first watt is garnered.
It certainly is a tempest in
Submitted by Susan (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 10:44 AM PST.
It certainly is a tempest in a teapot (and I would assume a chargeable offense in the UK - hope this is being looked into), the trouble is is that the small-brained idiots who froth at the mouth every time climate change is mentioned are going to eat this up. It will become part of their "religion" and it will become increasingly hard to correct peoples' impressions of this. This is a real problem - and what a goddamn shame if Earth is doomed because some cretin living in his mom's basement stole a bunch of emails.
Are you serious?
Submitted by JohnR (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 12:58 PM PST.
Wait a minute! You're saying that AGW opposition is a "religion"? What a hoot! Our side has been claiming for years...and correctly so...that radical environmentalism is a secular religion. And like a religion, it suppresses dissent, flys into a rage when questioned, and has a "gospel". How dare you "project" your secular religious beliefs onto your opponents.
We are as serious as a heart attack
Submitted by Texas Aggie (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 4:54 PM PST.
The AGW movement may have claimed for however long it has existed that dealing with reality is a religion, but that doesn't make it true. A religion is a set of beliefs to which it demands adherence by faith, not by proof. That certainly describes the AGWers. Furthermore, a religion changes facts, invents facts, and ignores facts to fit its faith, not the other way around. That also describes the AGWers. Also, a religion is based on received wisdom and is not subject to change as opposed to science which is based on what we can measure and on what results when a particular "cause" occurs. In other words, faith is believing what we know is not true, a statement that certainly describes the AGWers (not to mention the creationists which have the same mindset.)
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually
change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They
really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I
cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or
religion. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. -Dan Barker, former preacher
Ah. A 'climate expert' from
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 8:02 AM PST.
Ah. A 'climate expert' from Texas A&M, home of cold fusion, the George Bush library, and engineering excellence that results in massively fatal bonfires...
Yes, this is ad hominem. But seriously, "AGW science is faith based"? Backed up only with assertions that you believe this to be the case? Ad hominem grants your argument more respect than it deserves.
But it's always good to highlight Aggie 'accomplishments', so thanks for that!
The New Religion
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 12:04 PM PST.
Warmology is a religion. Warmologists just wear a Hockey Stick instead of a Cruciffix.
Climate change /global warming
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:08 AM PST.
I think the point was that the dogma that despite all extant environmental changes, global warming is a myth and we should not respond to climate change indicators will become part of the "things we have to believe" all facts to the contrary and without evidence that is most typical of religion (like "the virgin birth", God created the earth etc 6000 yrs ago in 6 days etc, or Mohammed rose to Heaven on a white horse etc)..
Both the left and right have such beliefs and they are impervious to rational debate about them.
what?
Submitted by Quiet Observer (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:28 PM PST.
...so it's the idiot who leaked the e-mails that's in the wrong here? Not the scientists who basically went against every single principle and their own scientific method? The ones who lied and tried to cover up data that didn't help them are ok here, but the guy who shined light on it is the problem?
Really?
You would have loved Jamestown. I hear the Punch was awesome.
good one
Submitted by kenga (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 4:42 PM PST.
"You would have loved Jamestown. I hear the Punch was awesome."
Yeah, that Capt. John Smith was a real silver-tongued charmer, leading his blindly-following acolytes to certain doom. And what he did to Rep. Pocahontas' Congressional delegation was a real tragedy.
That is not the Jamestown he
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 7:31 PM PST.
That is not the Jamestown he is referring to.The one he/she is referring to is one that you would have gladly joined.
jamestown
Submitted by Skippybkroo (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:35 PM PST.
among the many reasons we don't take the agw crowd (and their "logic") seriously is not only their inability to read, nor their illiteracy in history as well as a science, but also their inability to recognize sarcasm when it's shoved in their faces.
it's jonestown to which you are attempting to refer, you dolt.
That would be Jonestown
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 6:38 AM PST.
I'm sorry to have to explain someone else's well-written joke, but apparently geographical precision is not a hallmark of at least two commenters.
Please read the article
Submitted by Texas Aggie (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 5:00 PM PST.
Even a brief perusal of the article would have demonstrated that the scientists did NOT lie, go against their principles or try to cover up incriminating data. Not only did you screw up on your interpretation of the article if you read it all or any of the other articles about this subject, but you also need to check up on your history.
When Capt. John Smith founded Jamestown, kool aid did not exist. It didn't gain its present notoriety until James JONES founded Jonestown in Guyana. As a former follower, you should have known that.
You're living in an alternate universe
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 5:59 AM PST.
My goodness, you really are living in an alternative universe, aren't you? A universe in which hiding things, omitting and manipulating data, refusing to release data even though it is taxpayer-funded, destroying data which no other scientist can then go and look at and analyse themselves (the ability to do this is one of the fundaments of the scientific method) -- a parallel universe in which all these things are moral, ethical and scientific, and which do not constitute to what amounts to lying. People like you make me sick, because your lack of morals, so evident by this post, are no doubt applied to many other aspects of life, unbeknownst to those around you.
I am a scientist myself, and as such I have a deep respect for science, the scientific method, and most scientists in general. What has happened in this Climategate scandal is nothing short of appalling. It has tainted the good work of honest, TRUE scientists who believe in experimental repeatability and transparency.
Tax-paid data collection
Submitted by Lex (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 11:48 AM PST.
[[refusing to release data even though it is taxpayer-funded, ]]
Is this a strongly held principle of yours, or just a convenient argument w/r/t this issue?
Reason I ask is, while I happen to agree with the principle, I've also noticed a big intersection between global-warming denialists who are ALL FOR releasing climate data and people who think it's a bad idea to, say, release photos of U.S. torture of detainees.
cover up? probably not
Submitted by RealTimeHistory on Sun Dec. 6, 2009 7:01 PM PST.
The real cover up here is that the editors felt they were being pushed by the publisher to accept a paper that didn't meet the standards of a comprehensive peer review. Subsequent rebuttals of the papers in question support the case that the articles were poor science.
That scientist's private e-mails use colloquialisms and shortcuts is not that unusual. The e-mails are not published material, and should not be construed as anything but private reactions and feelings on any subject. In this electronic age, it is way to easy to vent one's frustrations in an e-mail, while never intending for that content to become public.
Where were you when the Bush Administration was busy covering up it's shenanigans?
Any difference?
Submitted by Dems Lose Huge in 2010 (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:05 AM PST.
Would anything be any different if they hadn't hacked in and gotten those emails?
No, I didn't think so.
Good answers:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/30/climate-change-count.html
Would anything be different?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 12:11 PM PST.
Here's a question for you: Would anything be different if these emails were hacked from Exxon or Boeing?
Only answer is to hack more mail servers
Submitted by MobiusKlein (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:07 AM PST.
if the climate deniers have their emails picked over for cherries, then so should Cato, or ExxonMobil. The anti global warming folks need new (rhetorical) ammo.
Otherwise, it's just an insane double standard, that illegally obtained evidence can only be procured against left wing causes. See Watergate.
Actually there MUST be a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:24 PM PST.
Actually there MUST be a double standard. When a scientific claim is made, the data and the methodology should be available to all, and all sceptics should be encouraged to examine everything to attempt to reproduce the results and to look for error and mistakes. Any lower standard is not acceptable science.
Hide the decline
Submitted by MacGruber on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:08 AM PST.
Hide the decline, Drum. Keep on hiding the decline.
This is no tempest in a teapot. A thorough review of the emails shows a willful ignorance to the last ten years of cooling data; an attempt to "hide the decline" of the decrease in global temperatures; a purposeful intent to destroy emails to avoid FOIA discovery; and the destruction of raw temperature data to prevent any meaningful scientific analysis.
The AGW Emperor is standing stark naked. Feel free to close your eyes or just see the grand garbs that you wish to see.
For the rest of us, this comes as no surprise. Global warming is nothing but a scam, an attempt to bully the world into a new energy/economic paradigm, one that the AGWers would stand to profit from handsomely (how much is Gore worth now, thanks to his global warming schtick?).
AGWers love to say "the science is settled." However, most smart, adult scientists will tell you that the science is almost NEVER settled, no matter what the scenario. This scientific bullying by the AGWers - stifiling dissent and claiming they are 100% correct - belies the flimsy foundation on which AGW is built.
Here is my favorite email excerpt:
> >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
> >
> >
> > Tim, Chris,
> > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> > press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> > Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
This is no tempest in a teapot.
Submitted by optical weenie on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:39 AM PST.
Oooooh McGrubby, you've remember the verses I penned to you last week.
How lovely!
Hide the Decline
Submitted by MStone (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 3:11 PM PST.
Amen McGruber. Couldn't have said it better myself.
A thorough review of the
Submitted by Brett (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 3:25 PM PST.
A thorough review of the emails shows a willful ignorance to the last ten years of cooling data;
Because there actually hasn't been any cooling - seven of the last ten years are among the hottest in history. It's just that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, and there hasn't been a year that has gotten that hot since. In other words, there has been a warming trend, but that does not mean that the temperature rises every year by clockwork.
an attempt to "hide the decline" of the decrease in global temperatures;
No, what happened was that they switched over to a different way of measuring temperatures because one of the records they were using - a study of tree core samples - wasn't reliable after 1960. The study authors themselves told them this, so it is "hiding" nothing - the later data is backed up by a variety of sources.
a purposeful intent to destroy emails to avoid FOIA discovery;
This is the only legitimate issue with the whole affair. Phil Jones frankly deserves heck over this, but it's not surprising - they had a chunk of that data from proprietary agreements with national meteorological services, and if they simply gave it up, they'd have a hard time getting more data (hell, Britain in general had had a hard time getting that data before). Why do you think previous FOI requests were denied, including the latest one by McIntyre?
the destruction of raw temperature data to prevent any meaningful scientific analysis.
No, the raw data was destroyed because of space considerations back in the 1980s, and because the data could be recovered from the sources in question that were used to make up the data record.
The AGW Emperor is standing stark naked.
The only thing standing naked is the raw desperation from the anti-global warming crowd evident in their efforts regarding this data. It's sad and pathetic, almost as much as similar efforts from creationists regarding evolution.
Global warming is nothing but a scam, an attempt to bully the world into a new energy/economic paradigm, one that the AGWers would stand to profit from handsomely
All right, asshole, I'm sick of this claim. Why don't you actually post some numbers showing the investments of various pro-global warming folks, and what they supposedly stand to gain? As opposed to the immense and obvious gains by the coal and oil industries if nothing is changed?
However, most smart, adult scientists will tell you that the science is almost NEVER settled, no matter what the scenario.
It's settled enough to make some vital decisions to prevent disastrous future consequences.
Here is my favorite email excerpt
Notice the utter lack of manipulations and the like? What it amounts to is a scientist tired of being pestered by so-called "skeptics" hoping that warming will occur faster than the predicted decadal scale in order to wipe their smug faces clean. That's all.
"Hide the decline"? As if.
Submitted by minordomo (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 9:28 PM PST.
"Hide the decline, Drum. Keep on hiding the decline.
This is no tempest in a teapot. A thorough review of the emails shows a willful ignorance to the last ten years of cooling data; an attempt to "hide the decline" of the decrease in global temperatures"
Would that accusation be based on THIS quote by Phil Jones?
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Hate to break it to you hard-nosed, fact-based skeptics... but that e-mail was written in 1999.
Which means it COULDN'T have been referring to a supposed decline in global temperatures from 2000 to 2009.
Any alternative interpretations are welcome, but the popular "they tried to hide the decline in global temperatures from 2000 to 2009, it says so right there" is OUT.
Confirmation of data
Submitted by RealTimeHistory on Sun Dec. 6, 2009 7:11 PM PST.
A true scientist continuously subjects data to comparisons with data from other methodologies. Discrepancies are revealed and corrections are achieved. If the data is bad, or unreliable, based on a comparison of various sources, then the unreliable data set is discarded.
When relatives tell me
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:09 AM PST.
When relatives tell me climate change is a myth, I tell them I hope we are smarter than ducks. Ducks defecate and pee where they eat and hang out. That's ok as long as the duck population stays low and as long as there is an ample fresh water supply. When one or both of those factors changes, then the ducks get sick and die off.
I hope we are smarter than ducks but until populations "that matter" die off in large numbers, I don't see any action at all.
Wow! I bet they don't have a
Submitted by A. Stark (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 12:13 PM PST.
Wow! I bet they don't have a reply to that!
Ducks are pretty stupid animals. Humans are not. Ducks may be too stupid to move to cleaner waters, but humans can, of course, think of ways around a duck problem. That's why humans have invented waste remediation technologies and ducks have not.
I just wonder why liberals don't have any belief in the human spirit or smarts. Most of the problems that have faced humans since day 1 have been conquered by human technology and insight.
The thing is, it's best to let humans figure out how to solve their problems without some bumbling government bureaucrat or technocrat standing in the way. Remember how the USSR "managed" its economy? Didn't work too well...
"Liberal's don't have believe in human smarts"?
Submitted by MobiusKlein (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:06 PM PST.
MacGruber, just what do you think the whole CO2 reduction schemes are, except an attempt to use smarts & spirits to solve what environmentalists think is a problem?
You don't believe the problem exists- we figured that part out.
But to think environmentalists aren't trying and caring is crazy even for you.
Environmentalists
Submitted by The big bull (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 2:20 PM PST.
Environmentalists are undoubtedly caring people, just as many conservatives, liberals, and moderates are caring about what they believe. The problem is when a desire to believe in something trumps reason and good science it becomes a crusade with no rationale. I believe that the planet has warmed in the last 150 years, I believe the planet cooled based on historical records from 1300-1850. I believe the climate was warmer during the middle ages till roughly 1300 when populations soared, vikings raised cattle in Greenland, and British wine was the toast of europe. Current climate science does not attempt to explain either the cooling or warming trends prior to 1850 with any other explanation than it was colder or warmer in asia with no data, suddenly it is all c02. True scientific inquiry sans a desire to secure vast sums of grant money or support your claim at all costs does not appear to be what has been happening.
Trying to prevent peer review of theories you don't like rather than examining them through review is bad science and censorship. You cannot just blow this off as if any opposing view is junk science and the East Anglia boys are all in the mold of Einstien. Einstien was vindicated by vigorous testing of his theories, and in some cases found to be wrong. This is solid scientific inquiry, not Gaia worship. Those who pray at the altar of AGW are no better than the Kansas school boards that won't allow evolution to be taught or the popes who denied the earth revolved around the sun. Congratulations you are now no better than the religious right!
So why does it sound
Submitted by RealTimeHistory on Sun Dec. 6, 2009 7:17 PM PST.
like you are opposed to taking the steps required to avoid polluting our own planet?
We should be using this "free" energy, instead of burning up petroleum and coal, merely because some rich and powerful forces have a vested interest in perpetuating their cash cows.
If petroleum and coal did not receive their "corporate socialism", their products could not compete with the renewable resources that are available.
Petroleum and coal did the trick for quite a while, but it's time to move on to something that's a lot more sustainable.
I would guess that this
Submitted by TW Andrews (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:14 AM PST.
I would guess that this kills cap and trade. The attack ads pretty much make themselves. Hard to see an already-reluctant Senate going to the mat in the face of the shitstorm that's brewing.
as if we had any doubt on
Submitted by howard (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:20 AM PST.
as if we had any doubt on the subject, good ol' macgruber shows up to demonstrate exactly why this is a tempest in a teapot.
you've got a bunch of morons like macgruber who are sheer deniers, pure and simple, not even people with enough character to say "yes, the earth is warming but speaking as a conservative, i believe that markets will cause behavior to adjust appropriately at the appropriate time."
the denial is ideological, not technical, in short, and we see this clearly in the way that gop-identified voters tell pollsters that they don't believe in global warming in increasing numbers simply because some democrats want to address the issue (through, need we note, market methods).
and because it's ideological, they don't need data points: as someone up above noted, is this really making any difference at all? if there were no hacked email, the moronic macgruber would still type the same moronic drivel.
Hit a raw nerve?
Submitted by MacGruber on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 11:35 AM PST.
Calm down, Howard. You know global AGW efforts were doomed from the start. India and China have both said "no thanks" to any global efforts to slow carbon-releasing energy. And China and India have logical points: Europe and America built vast and prosperous societies, thanks in part to carbon-based fuels. Now, Europe and America are trying to deny India and China the same. Sounds pretty racist, if you ask me.
As for allowing the market to work, I'm all for it. Let the market decide which energy is best. If governments, like ours, would allow it, you'd see a lot more natural gas and oil drilling here in the states, which would wean us off foreign energy supplies.
Yes, open up the market for new nuclear power plants. What a better way to get rid of old coal-fired plants than to replace them with nuclear plants, which don't belch out CO2.
But you know as well as I do that the governments are going to let this happen.
It's over. Nice try, but it's over. In light of these damning documents, no one with a rational head on their shoulders is going to believe without question what the AGW is trying to spoonfeed anymore.
most of what you propose, does not work
Submitted by dr2chase on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 12:48 PM PST.
The problem with AGW is that there's not a market solution -- global warming is an externalized cost, hence (without carbon taxes or something along those lines) no market solution. So, markets are not useful here, unless you use a government-created market. (I'm astonished that this is still not well-known.)
We don't have the oil reserves to wean ourselves off of imports, so that just won't work. (I'm astonished that this is still not well-known.)
Natural gas, wikipedia claims we have 100 years, and we're using it at about half the (energy) rate that we are using oil. If we replace all our oil with gas, we've got 35 years. It's a hair better from the CO2/watt point-of-view, but hardly a home run.
I'm not sure if we're going to end up building lots more nukes or not. There are reasons to do it (wind/solar eggs, single basket, bad idea), but the competition is getting cheaper at a steady pace, which could make the large up-front investment required to build a nuke plant not look quite so attractive -- your customers might bail before you were through paying for the nuke plant.
The leaked emails are hardly damning. You may want them to be damning, it may profit your political tribe and/or employer if they are seen as damning, but they sure as heck aren't unmelting the glaciers and ice caps. People have been known to say stupid stuff, and some people have been known to commit it to email.
As to China and India, unfortunately they have every right to be as irresponsible as we were, and if we don't start limiting our emissions sharply, then they might very well follow our bad example. There's such a thing as learning from mistakes, either your own, or those of someone else. If we don't demonstrate, through our actions, that our former choices were a mistake, why shouldn't they make those same choices?
strangely enough, macgruber,
Submitted by howard (not verified) on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:13 PM PST.
strangely enough, macgruber, i'm not excited in the first place, so i have nothing to calm down about: you're a clown, you've always been a clown, and you will undoubtedly continue to be a clown, so there's not much to get worked up over!
as for your comments, you need to make up your mind: either global climate change is a crock and has no evidentiary basis or you favor market solutions to the problems, but you don't get to hold both positions.
so which one do you hold? and if you hold the "market solutions" position, then why did you type out such drivel in the first place?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
