Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[Foxfyre]

Forbes magazine has commented on the newest data in the Climategate scandal:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

More here:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

I wonder how our AGW supporting friends will handle this new information?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll even help out the AGW proponents with a left leaning commentary from NPR:

. . .The Guardian reports that the new release contains more than 5,000 emails, but they appear to be part of the trove that was attained back in 2009. If you remember, those emails unleashed what has come to be known as "climategate." In short, emails from scientists raised questions about whether they were manipulating information to make the case for global warming. After many inquiries, scientific consensus still remains that the world is warming.

The University of East Anglia, whose research department was hit hard by the first batch of hacked emails, said the sheer number of documents made it impossible for them to confirm their authenticity. In a statement, the university added:

This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. . . .

. . . .(Michael) Mann confirmed to the Guardian that some of the emails were his and described the release as "truly pathetic."

He said the people behind the releases were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

Second Set Of 'Climategate' Emails Hit The Web : The Two-Way : NPR

So there's your debate folks. Seemingly damning e-mails admitting manipulation by the scientific community countered with accusing the fossil fuel industry of smearing, innuendo,and criminal hacking of websites.

 

[Trajan]

I work in a place were there are some world class GWer's.

having spoken with a number of them, I have noticed a few things; 1) the ones who really are serious about getting to the bottom of it, don't like the fact that the UN has helped turn the whole thing into a 'theme' and a circus, the Copenhagen lead off film is a perfect example- hyperbole so far out its embarrassing, a lot of them agreed on that2) the ones how are seriously on the fence never talk much in front of the ones who 'believe' 3) when I brought up no.2 with a few of them and asked why they weren't very verbal amongst their peers, they both looked at me and said and I am paraphrasing- 'hey you can figure it out. I like my position here'.

my stance is, I am not sure how much we are doing, as in harm, the more obvious things are, well obvious, yet there is a natural cycle too. Science should not be conducted by berserkers, once I heard someone describe a berserker as someone who redoubles their effort but has lost grasp of how to pursue their aim in a fundamental way. That fits I think.

I think we should all be aware of and good stewards of the environment, but its become religion now. Logic has appeared to have fled and honest debate has left town.

 

[Oddball]

2,3 & 5.

 

[Foxfyre]

I work in a place were there are some world class GWer's.

having spoken with a number of them, I have noticed a few things; 1) the ones who really are serious about getting to the bottom of it, don't like the fact that the UN has helped turn the whole thing into a 'theme' and a circus, the Copenhagen lead off film is a perfect example- hyperbole so far out its embarrassing, a lot of them agreed on that2) the ones how are seriously on the fence never talk much in front of the ones who 'believe' 3) when I brought up no.2 with a few of them and asked why they weren't very verbal amongst their peers, they both looked at me and said and I am paraphrasing- 'hey you can figure it out. I like my position here'.

my stance is, I am not sure how much we are doing, as in harm, the more obvious things are, well obvious, yet there is a natural cycle too. Science should not be conducted by berserkers, once I heard someone describe a berserker as someone who redoubles their effort but has lost grasp of how to pursue their aim in a fundamental way. That fits I think.

I think we should all be aware of and good stewards of the environment, but its become religion now. Logic has appeared to have fled and honest debate has left town.

There is no one more passionate on the environment than I am if you factor in common sense coupled with integrity. As long as I can type or speak, I will be promoting clean air, clean water, clean soil, aesthetic beauty, and appreciation for all living things.

But when you read testimony after testimony of those who lose their grants or jobs or who are made outcasts and pariahs if they don't at least give lip service to the AGW 'religion' it doesn't take a genius to legitimately question the integrity.

And when you see massive inefficiency in efforts to promote environmental efficiency in energy production, reduction of emissions, etc. etc. etc. along with an increasing cost in individual liberties and prosperity, it doesn't take a genius to legitimately question the common sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Foxyre, you are a liar. Anyone that understands anything at all about the environment has seen what has been happening in a warming world. Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

The burning of fossil fuels is one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of pollution in our environment. From the poisoning of the land and rivers from the mountaintop removal of coal mining, the the lead and mercury in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Add the poisoning of rivers by flyash. And you fellows fought tooth and nail to allow the generation plants to continue to pour sulphates and sulfides into the air, poisoning our lakes and killing our forests. Acid rain was and is a problem.

The environment is changing to rapidly for many species of plants and animals to adapt. From the changing temperatures that create environments that favor insect pests over forests, to the acidification of the ocean. These are the effects of putting 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere. To state that you cannot see the results and that you are an environmentalists is like the Nazis that claimed to have Jewish freinds.

 

[Foxfyre]

2,3 & 5.

Or maybe 2, 3 & 6? There's no vote for #5

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxyre, you are a liar. Anyone that understands anything at all about the environment has seen what has been happening in a warming world. Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

The burning of fossil fuels is one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of pollution in our environment. From the poisoning of the land and rivers from the mountaintop removal of coal mining, the the lead and mercury in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Add the poisoning of rivers by flyash. And you fellows fought tooth and nail to allow the generation plants to continue to pour sulphates and sulfides into the air, poisoning our lakes and killing our forests. Acid rain was and is a problem.

The environment is changing to rapidly for many species of plants and animals to adapt. From the changing temperatures that create environments that favor insect pests over forests, to the acidification of the ocean. These are the effects of putting 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere. To state that you cannot see the results and that you are an environmentalists is like the Nazis that claimed to have Jewish freinds.

Well first, there WERE Nazis who had Jewish friends. Oscar Schindler comes immediately to mind.

Secondly, I should take seriously the opinion of somebody who calls me a liar when I haven't yet expressed an opinion on climate change?

 

[Old Rocks]

Pretty apparent you position from the wording of the questions in the poll.

My opinion does not count. What counts is that you claim to be an environmentalist, yet take a position that the scientists that have been trying to warn us concerning what is happening in our environment are liars and frauds.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pretty apparent you position from the wording of the questions in the poll.

My opinion does not count. What counts is that you claim to be an environmentalist, yet take a position that the scientists that have been trying to warn us concerning what is happening in our environment are liars and frauds.

Why don't you reread the poll and the two opposing posts I started the thread with and offer a reasoned rebuttal? You look like a leftwing wacko loon attacking me instead of the thesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

That is two statements, not one. The first is true. The second involves the residence time of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the tipping points of such things as the permafrost and Artic Clathrates.

We cannot fix what we do not yet understand. We know the residence time of CO2 is in centuries, but do not yet understand enough of how the initial amount effects the length, a few centuries, or many, of time involved. As for the rest, we simply don't know where we are on those items, period. We may be already past the tipping points, we may be centuries from them, or not be a problem at all if we reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere in a reasonable time. Given that we don't know yet what constitutes a reasonable time.

Kind of like running down a road in a dense fog at full speed, knowing full well that there is a bridge out over a deep canyon somewhere down the road, but since we don't know how far, it is OK just to keep the pedal to the metal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post

OK, we all agree that we are in the midst of climate change. Why not just state that, instead of 'natural' climate change? That is definately slanting the poll.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post

Oh well;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Full-Auto]

Pretty apparent you position from the wording of the questions in the poll.

My opinion does not count. What counts is that you claim to be an environmentalist, yet take a position that the scientists that have been trying to warn us concerning what is happening in our environment are liars and frauds.

THEY ARE LIARS AND FRAUDS, WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE, You hurt feelings.

 

[code1211]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

That is two statements, not one. The first is true. The second involves the residence time of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the tipping points of such things as the permafrost and Artic Clathrates.

We cannot fix what we do not yet understand. We know the residence time of CO2 is in centuries, but do not yet understand enough of how the initial amount effects the length, a few centuries, or many, of time involved. As for the rest, we simply don't know where we are on those items, period. We may be already past the tipping points, we may be centuries from them, or not be a problem at all if we reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere in a reasonable time. Given that we don't know yet what constitutes a reasonable time.

Kind of like running down a road in a dense fog at full speed, knowing full well that there is a bridge out over a deep canyon somewhere down the road, but since we don't know how far, it is OK just to keep the pedal to the metal.

Thank you.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet you advocating holding the pedal to the metal. That is hardly an wise position.

Code, you are an advocate for the energy corperations, and advocate continueing to add GHGs to the atmosphere no matter what the consequences.

 

[rightwinger]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

 

[Full-Auto]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

Ya just cant prove it.

But we can prove some involved have been less then honest.

In fact had this group of people not been so deceptive, much of the opposition simply would not have been there.

 

[rightwinger]

The first release of emails proved baseless, so they go into the same pool of useless emails and come out with a new set of baseless accusations.

98% of climate scientists say it is real only right wing radio talk show hosts disagree

Ya just cant prove it.

But we can prove some involved have been less then honest.

In fact had this group of people not been so deceptive, much of the opposition simply would not have been there.

You have nothing in you emails relating to actual studies and their merits. Nothing that would indicate ANY of the studies are false

You failed miserably with Climategate 1...... This is just more of the same

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Foxyre, you are a liar. Anyone that understands anything at all about the environment has seen what has been happening in a warming world. Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

The burning of fossil fuels is one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of pollution in our environment. From the poisoning of the land and rivers from the mountaintop removal of coal mining, the the lead and mercury in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Add the poisoning of rivers by flyash. And you fellows fought tooth and nail to allow the generation plants to continue to pour sulphates and sulfides into the air, poisoning our lakes and killing our forests. Acid rain was and is a problem.

The environment is changing to rapidly for many species of plants and animals to adapt. From the changing temperatures that create environments that favor insect pests over forests, to the acidification of the ocean. These are the effects of putting 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere. To state that you cannot see the results and that you are an environmentalists is like the Nazis that claimed to have Jewish freinds.

Shut the fuck up, Moron.